Preamble

House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 25 February.

LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Smoking

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives he plans to take to draw attention to the damage to health caused by smoking [14727]

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Press, television and radio advertising are being used in support of a programme aimed at teenagers as well as the more general national smoking education campaign. Detailed arrangements for the final year of the campaign will be finalised shortly. Future activity will be developed in the light of the evaluation of the current campaigns.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that non-smokers have absolutely no choice in public places but to inhale other people's smoke, whether in a railway coach or a restaurant? He might consider the Singapore experience, which has been very successful: little plastic see-through igloos are built in public places and are the sole place where smokers may smoke, and the public can look in and see who is puffing away.

Mr. Malone: Perhaps I can add to the list my hon. Friend gave of places where passive smoking is a problem the Strangers' Bar in this House, where otherwise politically correct Labour Members often inflict this problem on all of us. We will let that pass, however. The instance that my hon. Friend outlined has not been drawn to my attention before. While we are keen to reduce the incidence of passive smoking, my initial reaction is that I do not think that placing the public in the stocks as he suggests would be the best way forward.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister must be aware that the House would be a good place to introduce some pioneering

activity in terms of non-smoking areas—sometimes the Palace seems to be suffused with smoke. Surely, both Members and staff could be educated a little better. On the more general point, there has been an interesting and encouraging decline in smoking, but in the last year of record, £69 million was spent on advertising tobacco alone. The advertisers are after young people and teenagers. They want to get them addicted early so that they will have them as slaves for the rest of their lives. When will the Government start to match that sort of advertising money?

Mr. Malone: If it is not the smokescreens put up by Opposition Members, it is when they are conflated with hot air that we occasionally have our greatest problems, and that is what the hon. Gentleman has done. The countries in the European Union that have been most successful in reducing smoking among their adult populations are the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where there is no ban on tobacco advertising—but we are supported by a voluntary arrangement. Other EU countries, where there is a ban, have not been nearly as successful as this country. Our principle of voluntary restraint is working, should be supported and should continue.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that while most smokers are knowledgeable about the dangers that they face from lung cancer and other cancers, few are aware of the severe danger that they face when they have to have anaesthetics for an operation, which can happen to any of us at any time? When he is considering publicity on the matter, will he also stress that point?

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will know that, as research into such matters progresses, and as we develop both the voluntary code of conduct and the warnings that appear on cigarette packets and other forms of advertising, any lessons that can be learnt will be borne in mind. I shall take on board what she says. She underlines another point about not having a ban on advertising: it is important to draw warnings to the attention of the public in a consistent but evolving way, to fit the prevailing circumstances, and that can be done under a voluntary code of regulation through the advertising campaigns that are run in this country.

Mr. Barron: The Minister must know that the Government have failed to reach their "Health of the Nation" target and that teenage smoking has increased by 50 per cent. Why does he not take the obvious initiative and ban tobacco advertising? Will we have at the next general election the same situation as we had at the last, when a deal was done with Imperial Tobacco so that Tory posters replaced cigarette advertisements on billboards throughout the country? When the Royal College of Physicians tells us that, every day, 450 children start smoking, is not it time that the Conservatives put the health of the public before the health of their party?

Mr. Malone: What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap. The hon. Gentleman would do better to base his case on the facts rather than on that sort of argument. The facts are simply that all the research shows that the one sure way to discourage smoking is to increase the price of tobacco, which is what the Government have done through the tax system. Tobacco in this country is more


expensive than in any of our European partner countries. That is the true way to ensure that there is a reduction in smoking.
The hon. Gentleman is keen to anticipate failure where none has occurred. There were four "Health of the Nation" targets set out for 2000; we are making sound and solid progress on three, and not as much progress as we would like on the fourth; but that makes us determined to redouble our efforts, rather than resort to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman was talking about.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the huge amount of tax paid by smokers? As a non-smoker, I am delighted that they pay that tax, because otherwise I and others like me, who have never smoked, would be required to fill the gap in funding. One wonders where Opposition Members expect to find the funds.

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right to say that smokers make an important contribution to revenue, but the Government's policy is underpinned by the fact that, while of course an increase in price raises extra revenue, it also fulfils the basic purpose of reducing tobacco consumption.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a no-fault liability compensation scheme for those victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused by human-derived growth hormone and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [14728]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): The human growth hormone treatment programme was the subject of legal action, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and we accepted the judgment that was delivered in July 1996.
Any future claim for compensation for other people who have contracted CJD, however that may have come about, will be considered within the context of the Government's statutory obligations.

Mr. Illsley: As the Minister rightly points out, the Government were found negligent in the High Court in respect of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases caused by the prescription of human growth hormone. As he will know, 22 victims have already died and far more are living with the terror that they might contract the disease as a result of the treatment, and that they might have to face the disease without any prospect of compensation.
Likewise, CJD victims from BSE are not being compensated, yet the Government have conceded an economic case for BSE compensation to the tune of £1 billion for farmers. Surely it is time to stop the endless litigation and bring in a no-fault liability scheme for the victims, who have contracted this terrible disease as a result of Government negligence, and their families.

Mr. Horam: Like the whole House, I am enormously sympathetic not only to those who have contracted CJD, whatever the cause, and their families, but to those who are worried but well and do not know whether they will be affected by this terrible disease. The problem from our

point of view is simply that it must be the first and overriding responsibility of the Department of Health to concentrate on preventing ill health and curing it when it occurs, not on compensating those who have contracted that terrible problem. We acknowledge our responsibilities where negligence is clearly proven, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding the terrible tragedy of people contracting Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease through the injection of growth hormone, will the Minister put the issue in perspective by confirming that only 15 people have contracted the disease through the consumption of beef?

Mr. Horam: So far, the figures suggest that 15 people have contracted the new variant of CJD, although there is no scientific evidence on the connection between BSE and CJD. The numbers are small. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, we must be concerned with not only those who have contracted the disease but, in cases involving human growth hormone, those who may contract it in future. Some of those people will receive compensation under the judgment that has been delivered. The families concerned are appealing against part of the judgment and, if they are successful, that may extend the scope of compensation.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the Minister consider the perspective of people such as my constituent, Edward Gray, who have been treated with human growth hormone and face years of stress and worry about whether they will contract this dreadful disease? Would it not be a kindness to introduce a no-fault system for such people as well as for those who have contracted it? That would at least reduce that aspect of the stress and worry associated with the disease.

Mr. Horam: It is tragic that a treatment that for 25 years appeared to offer people of low stature a chance to reach normal height has developed a terrible side effect. However, the Health Department's first priority must be to cure health problems, not to compensate those who, however sadly, die from or contract this disease. None the less, we will consider cases of negligence most sympathetically. We have followed up the court case quickly. I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to do that.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend resist absolutely the accusation of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), whom I normally respect, that this problem has come about through Government negligence? The debate yesterday made it clear that that is not the case. People who suggest it are attempting to use politics to bring out the sympathy that we all have for people with the disease. It is not a question of political negligence. The Department of Health will do everything possible to assist those who may be affected by the disease.

Mr. Horam: Indeed. As my right hon. Friend knows, that is why we have given funds to the CJD support network. We are conducting research, and we have set up—and support—a counselling service that operates from Great Ormond Street hospital. On research and health, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, we are


committed to giving all the support that we can. However, we do not feel that we can go further and introduce a no-fault compensation scheme, which would be expensive and detract directly from funds for health care.

Breast Cancer

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on breast cancer mortality rates in (a) Britain and (b) other European Union countries. [14729]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): Breast cancer mortality rates in the United Kingdom fell by 6.5 per cent. between 1986 and 1992. They have been falling at a faster rate than the European Union average. That demonstrates the continuing success of the action that we are taking, which includes the "Health of the Nation" targets, the national breast cancer screening service and the issuing of specific guidance on improving outcomes in breast cancer.

Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer. While we welcome some of the modest improvements that have been made, 35 women a day—13,000 a year—die from breast cancer. Those are not cold statistics; people's lives are being adversely affected, families are being destroyed, and young children are being left without mothers. Does the Minister accept that there are huge regional variations in how people are treated, which means that there is a lottery for treatment? What steps will the Government take to ensure that early detection occurs in all parts of the country and that treatment is successful?

Mr. Burns: I assure the hon. Lady categorically that the Government take the problem very seriously. That is why we introduced the national breast screening programme. I do not accept that treatment is a lottery. The role of the national health service is to provide the same high-quality care for every patient who suffers from that tragic illness. We shall continue to ensure that that occurs through the screening programme, the guidelines on outcomes and through medical decisions and care.

Mr. Rowe: The Government deserve considerable congratulations on their successes so far and on their continuing efforts to improve the situation, but will my hon. Friend examine the extraordinary imbalance between the funds made available for the important breast cancer campaign and those made available for prostate cancer, which kills an increasing number of men every year?

Mr. Burns: As my hon. Friend will know, this year the Government are making £25 million available for cancer research, the pharmaceutical companies are making £114 million available, and the charities are making £100 million available. That is a considerable amount of money devoted to research into all types of cancer. It is crucial that research continues in order to minimise the number of deaths and illnesses caused by that tragic condition.

Ms Jowell: Last year, the Secretary of State asserted in the House:
To talk about a waiting list for cancer surgery is to talk about a waiting list that does not exist".—[Official Report, 3 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 784.]

Will the Minister tell the House how he squares that claim with figures provided by his Department that show that more than 10,000 women had to wait more than two weeks for breast cancer surgery in 1994–95?

Mr. Burns: Notwithstanding the fact that we are in the run-up to a general election, I think that it is unfortunate for any politician to try to score cheap party political points on cancer care.

Ms Jowell: Answer the question.

Mr. Burns: I shall answer the question if the hon. Lady will listen. She knows that the Labour party's commitment is bogus because no one waits for cancer treatment unless the doctor makes a clinical decision to that effect. There are times when cancer patients are not medically able to undergo an operation. To talk of a waiting list in the terms that the hon. Lady uses is scaremongering and despicable.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's excellent record on tackling cancer. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Cancer Research Institute and to the Royal Marsden hospital in my constituency, which have contributed considerably to that success? Will he also encourage women to take advantage of breast screening opportunities so that the success may continue?

Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which she asks her question. I pay full tribute to the contribution of all charities and of the pharmaceutical companies, which do much good work in seeking to reduce and minimise the evils of cancer. I pay tribute also to the Royal Marsden hospital and to the fantastic work done by nurses and doctors in an attempt to eliminate that terrible source of suffering.

Mental Health Services

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss services for mentally ill people. [14730]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I last met the Association of Directors of Social Services informally on 4 February. Services for mentally ill people were among the issues discussed at that meeting.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Secretary of State aware that emotional and conduct disorders affect 20 per cent. of adolescents, and that in 1995 a NHS advisory service survey showed that mental health provision for children and adolescents was patchy and inadequate? Why did he not confront that problem in his recent Green Paper and advance proposals for handling the difficulties that children and adolescents face?

Mr. Dorrell: I have never believed that those who are concerned about mental health problems serve their interests by inflating the number of people who suffer from mental illness. Some people suffer from acute and serious mental illness, and we need to improve the quality of service provision for them. That is why the resources


committed last year to improving mental health services totalled £90 million, why a further £50 million was allocated in this year's public expenditure survey settlement to expand mental health services in the next financial year, and why we are looking to health and social services departments to expand their provision using the extra money that the Government are providing.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the provision of medium-secure beds from none in 1979 to nearly 1,200 today is evidence of the Government's real commitment of resources to those who suffer from mental illness?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point. Medium-secure bed provision is an important part of the total spectrum of care in mental health services. The need for identifiable medium-secure mental health beds was described by the Glancy committee in 1974; Labour in office did absolutely nothing about it, but this Government have delivered the total number of beds that Glancy—too many years ago—determined was necessary.

Ms Coffey: In view of the recent reports of problems at Broadmoor, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the commissioning and monitoring arrangements established with the high-security psychiatric commissioning board are adequate to ensure proper inspection of care and control in special hospitals? Will he agree to widen the terms of the inquiry into Ashworth to enable the inquiry team to examine the adequacy of current arrangements for inspections of all three special hospitals and to make recommendations?

Mr. Dorrell: No. The Fallon inquiry into Ashworth was set up to examine the background to a very precise set of circumstances that need to be properly examined. When I set up the inquiry, I made it very clear that Mr. Fallon would be free to follow up any linkages with the failures that occurred in the personality disorder unit at Ashworth—either linkages to the rest of the hospital or linkages to places outside Ashworth hospital. Clearly, if they lead to Broadmoor, Mr. Fallon is free to follow up such linkages, but at the moment there is no evidence of any such linkage.

Sir Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between mentally ill people, who are normally the responsibility of health authorities, and people with learning disabilities, the services for whom lie within the ambit both of local authorities and of health authorities? Is not that an area that lends itself to joint commissioning? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the London borough of Bromley, plans are currently under consultation for just such joint commissioning of services? Will he commend that and suggest that others might follow suit?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that social services departments and health authorities have a key role to play in the delivery of services to mentally ill people and people suffering from a learning disability. The Green Paper that the Government published two weeks ago is designed precisely to improve the linkage between health and social services

in the delivery of services to mentally ill people—a weakness that certainly needs to be addressed. Various options for strengthening the linkages between health and social services are canvassed in the Green Paper; one of those options will be followed up, because it provides the key to an important improvement in mental health care.

Cancelled Operations (Northern and Yorkshire)

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual change in the number of patients in the Northern and Yorkshire region who have had operations cancelled on the day they were due to go into hospital or after admission since 1994–95. [14731]

Mr. Dorrell: Between 1994–95 and 1995–96, cancelled operations in the Northern and Yorkshire region increased by 14.8 per cent. The most recent information for the current year shows a fall in cancelled operations of 25 per cent.

Mr. Mudie: The Minister will confirm to the House that, under the patients charter, cancellations of operations on the day of admission should not happen at all, yet he has confirmed an increase of 14 per cent., which means 830 additional cases and brings the total in the past year to more than 6,613 cancellations. How does he explain those figures to the House? In view of the distress that cancellations cause to patients and their relatives, will he take this opportunity to apologise to those patients on behalf of his Department? Will he pledge that there will be no cancellations in the coming financial year?

Mr. Dorrell: No Health Minister can pledge that there will be no cancellations. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), on the Opposition Front Bench, could not make that commitment and it would be absurd if he tried to do so. The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. He had the opportunity to congratulate the health service in the Northern and Yorkshire region on the 25 per cent. reduction in cancelled operations in the current year.
I have even better news for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in Leeds. In the current year, the number of operations that were cancelled there fell by more than half. The hon. Gentleman might have taken time off to congratulate those who are responsible for delivering health care to his constituents on the improved service that they are delivering in the current year. I look forward to his having the opportunity to remedy that failure.

Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the claptrap from the Opposition Benches? Will he remind people in the country, and the House, of the distress that was caused by union members and Labour party members who picketed hospitals in 1979?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Labour party, with its close links with the trade union movement, must bear its responsibility for the failures in health care that typified the winter of 1978–79 and the period before that. It is worth reflecting that, although cancelled operations account for roughly 1 per cent. of people coming off the waiting list, the number of operations that are cancelled because the patient does


not show up at hospital corresponds to roughly 5 per cent. of the total. It is worth bearing that figure in mind when reflecting on the number of cancelled operations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State be less aggressive and more apologetic about the figures that are the answer to this question? The answer that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), gave me last month showed that, in the Northern and Yorkshire region, there were 1,200 cancellations on the day of admission or after, and 75 which failed the citizens charter standard. In my area, the corresponding figures were 350 and 75. Nationally, there were 50,000 cancellations and 6,000 cancellations that failed the citizens charter standard for readmission within one month of the original date.
What will the Secretary of State say to the family of Queenie Harrild, who died in Guy's hospital and whose inquest is this week, when the citizens charter is regularly breached and thousands of patients continue to be admitted to hospital and then sent home, some of whom die before their operation?

Mr. Dorrell: To an individual patient, if the service fails, of course I express regret. I have never pretended that any human institution can deliver a perfect service. However, when we talk about the cancelled operations record of the national health service, let us start by remembering that when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) held the job now held by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, she predicted that there would be 300,000 cancelled operations in the national health service last year. The actual figure was not 300,000 but 54,000, and in all but 6,000 of those cases the patient was then operated on within a month.
That is the record of the national health service—against the background of 5.5 million people being taken off the waiting list every year to receive the care that they need in our health service. The hon. Gentleman might do better to report those figures more often.

Mr. Batiste: The drop of more than 50 per cent. in operation cancellations in Leeds is extremely good news. Can my right hon. Friend give some idea of why that outstanding performance has been achieved this year? Does it owe something to the improving quality of management, which is always subject to criticism and attack from the Labour party?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is nice that he, at least, can welcome that improvement in the health care delivered to the people of Leeds on behalf of the people of Leeds.
My hon. Friend asks why the improvement has been brought about. I suggest that there are two reasons. First, the health service is better managed than it used to be; secondly, the Conservative Government are committed to the growth of the national health service—as the Prime Minister said at last year's Conservative party conference, real growth, which has happened every year since 1979, will happen year on year on year on year on year through

the five years of the next Parliament. I wish the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury well in his negotiations with the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chris Smith: Is not the reality that patient after patient in hospital after hospital is having his or her operation cancelled, frequently just before or just after going into hospital? Is not the real position, which the people of this country know, very different from the Government's rosy version of events?
When hospital trusts talk openly about the judicious elimination of numbers of patients due to go in for operations, does not that show that the Government are fiddling the figures? Is not the truth that no one can trust the Tories with the health service?

Mr. Dorrell: The answer to every one of the hon. Gentleman's questions is no. His problem is that he has not been able to secure the backing of his Front Bench for a commitment to a growing health service.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman some other statistics that measure the growth of the health service under the present Government. Because we are committed to extra resources for a growing health service, I was able to announce increases in intensive care provision in the NHS. Over the past five years, the number of places for day surgery has roughly doubled. That is why, under this Government, the number of patients treated has increased by a third in the last six years. That is a record to which the hon. Gentleman cannot begin to measure up, because his hon. Friends will not allow him to make the pledge to a growing health service that the Prime Minister has made.

Sir Donald Thompson: Is it not a fact that Northern and Yorkshire health authority is one of the best in Europe, and are not the Labour party's politically motivated attacks on the health service now leading directly—it is Labour's responsibility—to difficulties in the recruitment of nurses and other hospital staff?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Along with the rest of the health service, Northern and Yorkshire health authority is treating more patients, and offering a broader range and better quality of care than ever before in its history.
The original question was asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). A Leeds Member might have been expected to welcome the fact that in the past 15 years—quite apart from a growing current health service budget in Leeds—we have invested an extra £130 million in improving hospital structures in the city. We are committed to increasing the capital stock of the health service in future through the private finance initiative—which the hon. Gentleman will not back—and to a growth in the number of patients who are treated. We are committed to growth; the Labour party is not.

Postponed Operations (Wolverhampton)

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgical operations were postponed in Wolverhampton during 1996; and if he will make a statement. [14732]

Mr. Horam: In the nine months to September 1996, 216 operations were cancelled in Wolverhampton on the day of admission or after admission to hospital.

Mr. Purchase: I thank the Minister for that information. The list of cancelled operations in Wolverhampton has fallen slightly over the last 12 months.
I am ecstatic for every one of my constituents who is treated properly, and in accordance with the citizens charter; but I am miserable beyond belief for the 350 or so whose operations are cancelled at the last minute. May I put the matter into a regional context, and tell the Minister that there has been an 18 per cent. growth in the number of operations cancelled at the last minute in the west midlands? May I extrapolate, and point out that across the regions of England and Wales that would have meant some 60,000 people waiting, in misery and anxiety, for further appointments after the cancellation of their original appointments? Does the Minister understand the anxiety, misery and worry that is being caused?

Mr. Horam: I do indeed understand the misery and worry experienced by the hon. Gentleman's constituents—and, indeed, by everyone who must face the prospect of a cancelled operation. That is why I, too, am delighted that, as in Leeds, the figures have fallen over the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that at some length, and I shall not add any further statistics; but we are all delighted that we are making such progress.

Organophosphates

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of organophosphate toxicity upon humans; and if he will make a statement. [14733]

Mr. Malone: We have awarded a research contract to the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh worth £500,000 to examine the possible long-term human effects of organophosphorous sheep dips.
My officials routinely obtain and evaluate papers in scientific journals that appear relevant to the effects of OPs upon humans. The medical and scientific panel, which is a sub-committee of the veterinary products committee, evaluates research on OPs used in veterinary medicines.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is it not complacent? For at least 15 years, those drugs have been known to be dangerous, but the Government are no further down the line. If the veterinary committee was not shot through with vested interests, perhaps we would get results sooner.

Mr. Malone: That is an unworthy allegation and, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would probably wish to

withdraw it. I do not know how he and the Opposition would wish the Government to proceed, other than on the basis of the best available scientific evidence. I am sorry that he has decided to criticise the committee in that way. The Government have always accepted recommendations to carry out research. We also carefully consider relabelling products, where that is necessary. The hon. Gentleman is marching down the same road as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is reported today in the press as saying that Labour has said, despite the evidence, that if it wins the election, it will tell farmers to avoid using the dips on safety grounds. That is a disgraceful failure to recognise the available evidence. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is moving down a track pioneered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), and we saw what results that brought about.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend seen the written answer that I received yesterday on the subject? It states that the veterinary products committee has examined the matter carefully and found no scientific justification, on present evidence, for withdrawing the dips from the market.

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right, and she will disappoint all those in the House who prefer to proceed not on the basis of the scientific evidence that is made available to Ministers, but on some other, politically motivated basis. My right hon. Friend's answer yesterday was based on the professional and scientific advice that he received. The Government will continue to examine all such advice and, if necessary, we will change our procedures accordingly.

Frail Elderly People

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS beds for frail elderly people in 2000. [14734]

Mr. Burns: The Government do not produce forecasts of the number of beds, although the number of geriatric cases treated rose by 19 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1995–96.

Mr. Canavan: What does the Minister have to say about a health board or health authority with a projected population of more than 40,000 elderly people by the year 2000, which plans to reduce the number of national health service beds for frail elderly people to a mere 160, which means that there will be an NHS bed for less than 0.4 per cent. of the elderly population? Would it not be a gross betrayal of the very generation of people who built our national health service if the Government were to deprive them of an NHS bed at their time of need?

Mr. Burns: I genuinely do not want to be unhelpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he is referring to Lochgreen hospital in his constituency. He will appreciate that he should raise the issue with—

Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.

Mr. Burns: I will in a minute. The narrow issue behind the hon. Gentleman's question should be raised with the


Minister of State, Scottish Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). On the wider question of beds for residential and nursing care in England and the United Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman seems to forget that, in the past five years or so, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of beds in such homes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that various illnesses are associated with aging, and that, with the number of geriatric beds available, there is a difficulty in accommodating such people in the NHS? Is it not necessary to re-examine the number of beds for those with aging illnesses, so that they do not have to be accommodated in private nursing homes?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, the decision to discharge anyone—elderly or otherwise—from hospital is a clinical decision, with back-up care provided, if needed, after they have left hospital. I am sure that he will welcome the noticeable increase in the number of nursing home beds as well as convalescent homes and halfway house wards for people who may need additional care after they have been treated in a hospital.

St. Bartholomew's Hospital

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [14735]

Mr. Dorrell: The Royal Hospitals NHS trust is carrying out the decisions that my predecessor announced on 4 April 1995.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why close St. Bartholomew's hospital when the people of London want to keep it open? Why close an institution that opened in 1123, which has been open for 874 years, and which survived the reformation, the great fire of London and Hitler's bombing of London? Yet now it is to be closed by the Tory Government.

Mr. Dorrell: Let us be precisely clear about what this Tory Government will do for health care for the people of the east end of London. We will invest £230 million in building a brand new hospital to deliver 21st-century care to people in the centre of London. The founders of St. Bartholomew's hospital would be proud of us.

Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the accelerated bed closures at Bart's have exacerbated the distress of local people, who are already acknowledged to be disadvantaged by the original decision on Bart's? Does he consider that a more sensitive political decision of a two-site project at Bart's might have greatly facilitated the progress of this particular private finance initiative?

Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend has always pursued the interests and views of his constituents very honourably and straightforwardly with both me and my predecessor. As I made clear when I took over these responsibilities, I do not believe that the holder of any ministerial office can revisit all the decisions made by his or her predecessor. I am quite clear that the course of action on

which my predecessor embarked will deliver the improved quality of health care—both primary and hospital-based care—to my right hon. Friend's constituents which both he and I would want to see.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14757]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Scots and the Welsh were to be given their own Parliament there would be an overwhelming demand from my constituents in Essex, and elsewhere in England, for English Members of Parliament to be given exclusive control over English affairs? What consequence does he think that that would have for the integrity of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the anomalies that would be thrown up were there to be a Scottish or Welsh Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary once said, when he was shadow Health Secretary, that he as a Scot could not be Health Secretary in England were health to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Clearly there are much wider applications than just health were such a Parliament to be established. That is just one of many anomalies thrown up by the policy of devolution which I hope that we will be able to examine this week.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made on "Panorama" a couple of years ago that the excesses that we saw in the water industry would not be repeated in the rail industry? Is he aware that, in the next few days, the second of the railway rolling stock companies, which was bought on privatisation for £580 million, is to be sold for £900 million? The first rolling stock company, having been bought for just over £500 million, was sold a few months later for more than £800 million. Does he agree that such profits are entirely unjustified?

The Prime Minister: I seem to recall the right hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition. That seems to apply only in generality and not in the real world when companies are efficient and sold on. The right hon. Gentleman and his party are as opposed to private ownership and privatisation today as they have ever been at any stage. They know that that is so and take every opportunity that they can to try to denigrate the success across the whole range of privatisation.

Mr. Blair: I certainly support the enterprise of the market. What I do not support is the incompetence of the


Government. I believe that most people in this country will see the difference between making an honest profit and profiteering.
Can I point out to the Prime Minister that, in the sale in the next few days, the managing director, who put in £110,000 a year ago, will make £20 million and the finance and engineering directors, who put in £80,000, will make £10 million each, and it is reported that the part-time chairman of the company privatised earlier, who worked for one day a month and put in £25,000, has walked away with £4 million? Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the enterprise of the market? Is it not simple profiteering?

The Prime Minister: It is hard not to remember that the right hon. Gentleman's private office is funded by the profits of privatisation. If such funds are so wrong, perhaps he will pay them back to those who provided them. It is not all that long ago that he was saying:
the pragmatic approach to privatisation is … correct. The key is … sticking to it regardless of the pressures.
Of course, he said that in South Africa; what he says here is quite different.

Mr. Blair: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, just for once at one of these Prime Minister's Question Times, he tries answering the question put to him? Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little order in this House. I can hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shouting and bawling.

Mr. Blair: Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains made on the sale of a public asset that is effectively run through public subsidy, and the misery of thousands of commuters yesterday at Waterloo station, who saw their trains cancelled and their services destroyed because the train company laid off one tenth of its drivers? Is not that the clearest example of a Conservative Government favouring the few at the expense of the many?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman remembers the bad old days of British Rail nationalisation—services were cut with no protection for the passenger. Now, penalties can be imposed and passengers have the right to apply for compensation. Clearly, from what he is saying, he is proposing new capital controls on the market. We look forward to hearing precisely what those are. He cannot deny that privatisation has been a success. Investment is at record levels. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see Labour Members' opposition to private ownership. I shall let them hoot a little longer. New rolling stock is being introduced, extra services are being offered—new services, new investment and higher standards. That is through private ownership across the range of privatised industries. People recall what it was like when Governments tried to run them.

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14758]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grammar schools and high schools exist in Dartford and in a further

60 constituencies across the country as a result of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979? The only guarantee of their continued existence is the Conservative party, and not the nightmare coalition of Opposition parties.

The Prime Minister: That must be right. The message to parents is quite clear: Labour in office would wipe out grammar schools. Labour local authority leaders have made that absolutely clear. As the shadow education spokesman said some time ago,
Watch my lips.…. With Labour there will be no selection.
There would be no selection, no choice, no improved standards, no opportunities and, if Labour had had its way, no tests, no information to parents and no improvement in education across the board. The worst 20 education authorities are all long-term Labour education authorities. That is not an accident; it is inevitable, given Labour's policies and instincts.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14759]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Prime Minister take the same view as I do: that the Daily Mail was right to campaign for the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice, and to name names? All law-abiding citizens are pleased that the murderer of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was knifed to death, is in prison—for a long time to come, I hope—but it is a matter of deep and continuing concern that the murderers of the 18-year-old lad who was knifed to death almost four years ago have not been brought to justice. Should not the authorities explore every avenue to ensure that his murderers are brought before the courts?

The Prime Minister: The whole House is united in offering its sympathy to the parents of Stephen Lawrence, and in condemning this unpunished racist attack. There is total unanimity on that point. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is no question of statutory contempt as a result of the activities of the Daily Mail. As the House is aware, it is not through lack of effort that no successful prosecution has yet been brought. I hope that, even at this stage, it will be possible to mount a successful prosecution. If evidence is forthcoming, it will be examined. There is no lack of will to prosecute.

Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is not
at home with the European social model"?
Will he also confirm that if we were to adopt that habit in this country, 23 million households would immediately face a £2,300 tax hike, which they would otherwise not need to pay?

The Prime Minister: Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, who alas is not present, I am self-evidently not at home with the European social model. It is evident why no one should be. The head of European operations at one of Britain's most successful companies was quoted in one of yesterday's newspapers. He referred to one European country, and said:
The costs were absurd and everything we wanted to do was blocked by the unions … Whenever we wanted to do anything to improve the business, their first reaction was to call a meeting of the works council.
The senior executive of Grundig said:
No employee or business is safe.
That is the reality of the way in which these well-meaning ideas work in practice. The second reality is the 4.5 million unemployed in Germany, the 3 million unemployed in France and the 2 million plus unemployed in Italy.

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14760]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe a debt to those people who fought in the second world war and who, in their working lives, created the wealth of this nation, and that they should be treated with the greatest respect? Is he aware that in my constituency two elderly people's homes are to be closed? The age of the people in those homes ranges from 70 plus to the 90s. Does that reflect a civilised society, and will the Prime Minister speak to the Minister responsible to ensure that some action is taken to avoid breaking up what is now a family of people in their dotage?

The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with the general proposition with which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I do not know the details of the case that he raises, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. When he has done so, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14761]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the form

for the 5 o'clock race at Market Rasen? If so, has he noted a sporting chance at 8/1 called "Pause for Thought"? While welcoming any convert to Conservative principles, does he agree that "Pause for Thought" might be a maxim to the recent converts to privatising the Tote?

The Prime Minister: The plan to privatise the Tote, apparently floated by the shadow Chancellor, seems to have been shot down very speedily by the shadow Foreign Secretary. One might say that it fell at the first fence.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14762]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: On the question of a Scottish Parliament, I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland says one thing and the Secretary of State for Health says another, but it would be petty, mean and spiteful if any future Tory Government tried to dismantle the Parliament that the Scottish people want.

The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a detailed and sensible debate on devolution proposals—

Mr. Skinner: What? In here?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I had hoped in here on Thursday, and beyond here thereafter, because, despite the passions and convictions felt about this issue by people on both sides of the argument, we can all, I hope, agree that it is an issue of crucial importance to the future of Scotland, of Wales, of the House and of other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope therefore that we can deal with it in detail. There are many questions to be asked and answered. I hope that that is the nature of the debate that we will have in the weeks ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

WASTE PREVENTION

Mr. Gary Waller, supported by Sir Teddy Taylor, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Sir John Hunt. Mrs. Helen Jackson, Sir David Knox, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Barry Sheerman, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to make arrangements to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 108].

Victims of Crime

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a new absolute defence to the crime of common assault upon a person engaged in certain offences; to require the prosecution to obtain the leave of the court before a person is tried with an assault against a person engaged in certain offences; to prevent criminal compensation being awarded in certain circumstances; to require the plaintiff in civil proceedings to obtain the leave of the court before proceeding in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

The purpose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Mr. Sweeney—just hold on a moment. Would Members leaving please do so quietly? We have business to conduct in the House. Come along. Mr. Sweeney, raise your voice.

Mr. Sweeney: The purpose of the Bill is to make it less likely that a person who purports to act in self-defence or in defence of property against a criminal will himself end up being sued or prosecuted for his actions. My Bill is not designed to give victims licence to attack criminals in any way they choose, and it is not intended to create an American-style gun culture. However, it would help to correct the impression that is sometimes given by the media, that the courts and Parliament care more about the welfare of criminals than about their unfortunate victims.
All hon. Members will be aware of the well-publicised cases in which victims have been taken to court for acts of self-defence, only to be acquitted months later by a jury which, having considered the evidence, has concluded that the behaviour complained of was reasonable in the circumstances. In the meantime, the defendant, who has already had to put up with a crime committed against his person or property, has the added worry of court proceedings against him, and the risk of imprisonment in a serious case.
My Bill would address those problems in three ways. First, a victim who committed a common assault—the most trivial type of assault known to the law—would have an absolute defence if he could show that, at the time of the assault, his victim was engaged in committing a criminal offence. For example, if a woman's handbag was being snatched and she hit her assailant across the face, she could not face charges, provided that she did not injure her assailant, even though her action would amount to a technical assault.
Secondly, in the case of more serious assaults by victims of crime, my Bill would provide that no criminal proceedings could be brought against the victim unless the approval of a judge in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court had first been obtained. Similarly, no civil

proceedings could be brought against a victim for compensation without the approval of a judge of the appropriate civil court.
Thirdly, my Bill would provide that a victim of crime, even if found guilty of assaulting his criminal attacker, could not have a criminal injuries compensation award made against him. That would not prevent the injured criminal from mounting a civil claim, subject to the success of a preliminary application to a judge for leave to bring the proceedings.
My Bill would not prevent a victim of crime from being sued or prosecuted for going too far in an act of self-defence. However, it would provide a screening device, making it less likely that victims would be prosecuted or sued. The need for a preliminary application by the prosecution, or the plaintiff in civil proceedings, to a judge would make the Crown Prosecution Service or the plaintiff think twice before proceeding. In considering the applications, judges would have to consider the public interest and take into account the desirability of ensuring that, in a finely balanced case, the law should lean in favour of victims rather than villains.
The Government have done much to help the victims of crime. For example, they have improved facilities so that, in all our modern courts, witnesses can be segregated from defendants. Furthermore, the Government have improved the efficiency of the police, increased the number of police officers, and of course, introduced tougher penalties to deal with villains. Nevertheless, the public still remain concerned, as my postbag demonstrates, that the law is biased in favour of the villain and against the victim. That grievance, which is shared throughout the country, will be redressed by my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Walter Sweeney, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. kin Duncan Smith, Mr. David Evans, Mr. John Greenway, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Edward Leigh, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Redwood, Sir Trevor Skeet and Mr. Michael Stephen.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Walter Sweeney accordingly presented a Bill to create a new absolute defence to the crime of common assault upon a person engaged in certain offences; to require the prosecution to obtain the leave of the court before a person is tried with an assault against a person engaged in certain offences; to prevent criminal compensation being awarded in certain circumstances; to require the plaintiff in civil proceedings to obtain the leave of the court before proceeding in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 109].

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [18th November], as varied by the Order of the House [25th November], be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the following Table and, subject to the provisions of the Order [18th November], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE


Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Nos. 8 and 12
6.15 p.m.


Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 93
7.30 p.m.


No. 40
8.15 p.m.


Remaining Amendments
9.00 p.m.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to her to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

(3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to her to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords on all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(4) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Supplemental

4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman and on the Report of such Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 at any time (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
The first anniversary of the dreadful tragedy at Dunblane will be in three weeks. In the year that has passed, the Government have established a public inquiry under Lord Cullen, responded to each of his recommendations, and prepared a major Bill which implements the tighter controls that he recommended. Those of his recommendations that can be introduced administratively will also be brought into effect.
The Bill itself was first published on 1 November 1996. In less than four months, it has passed through both Houses, to reach its final consideration stages this week. Both Houses have given the highest priority to the serious matters in it, and that priority must continue, to ensure that it reaches the statute book without delay. The allocation of time order allows the House five hours in total to consider this order and the amendments to the Bill that were tabled in another place.
The main amendments, on disassembly and compensation, have already been extensively debated in the House. Five hours have already been spent, either by the House or in Committee, discussing those two subjects. I am therefore confident that this order will enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to make their points today. Within the five-hour period—depending on the length of this debate, for which one hour is allowed, if necessary—the debate on disassembly will continue until 6.15 pm; on compensation until 7.30 pm; on starter shooters until 8.15 pm; and on the other amendments until 9.00 pm.
We have made that allocation because, if the amendment on disassembly were to be allowed, it would completely change the Bill's focus and undermine the case for licensed pistol clubs, which are the subject of part II of the Bill, and it would also weaken the general prohibition on handguns in part I. It is an important issue.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend also admit that, if disassembly were accepted by the House, it would also save the Government an enormous amount of money?

Miss Widdecombe: The merits of disassembly are properly to be debated in the first consideration of their Lordships' amendments. I therefore do not think that I should be drawn down the very tempting path offered by my hon. Friend. I understand that he feels strongly on the issue, and I look forward to hearing his comments later.
As I said, much debate has taken place on compensation, but I still believe that it is right that one hour should be set aside to deal with such an important topic.
We believe that the motion will permit sufficient opportunity to re-examine the concerns raised in another place, while ensuring that there is no undue delay in the Bill's passage. I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The underlying premise of my right hon. Friend's speech was that no delay should be allowed to interfere in the Bill's passage. However, one development since the matter was first mooted is that the public have begun to consider the underlying issues much more seriously than they understandably did in the immediate aftermath of the appalling Dunblane tragedy. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who has met many people who are undoubtedly responsible in their use of firearms. I wonder whether it would not be a great deal better if the House were to spend rather longer before rushing the Bill on to the statute book.

Mr. Frank Cook: We have been told that great urgency is required to pass this legislation. Apparently such great urgency is required that there has been more than a moderate degree of co-operation between Government and Opposition Front Benchers. Sadly, the observation that I must make on that co-operation—or should I say, collusion—is that, when

the Government and the Opposition get together as of one mind, they usually make a mess of it, and they are doing so again on this occasion. We are told that we must get this Bill through in the shortest period and with the greatest haste, despite the fact that we are dealing with a complex set of circumstances.
I want to try to educate the House this afternoon—I do not use that term arrogantly—on aspects of legislation related to firearms that should have been considered, but which, frankly, have been neglected. Some hon. Members present this afternoon will recall that I was the Opposition Whip during debates on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 following Hungerford, and they will realise that some of the remarks I make this afternoon will repeat some of the comments I made then.
I remind the House that there is not and will not be a central register of licence holders—no matter whether we pass the Bill as it stands today or not. Let me try to explain what I mean. If someone in London applies for a firearms certificate, the police do a number of checks on that individual and his background. They go to the domestic violence unit to see whether he or she has been in the habit of knocking anyone about. They go to the local intelligence officer to see whether that beat officer has any knowledge that might preclude the issue of such a licence. The police check with section SO18, the adult cautions section.

Madam Speaker: Order. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are debating an allocation of time motion? He is going into a great many details that he could possibly reserve for the debates on the amendments. We are at the moment debating only the allocation of time, and I should be glad if he will consider that and come to it when he resumes his speech.

Mr. Cook: I am deeply grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, but I have to point out that the case I am making is that we are talking about a limitation of time, but I am referring to aspects of the legislation which have not been covered and which cannot be covered because the following amendments are specific. These matters cannot be discussed, as anyone doing so would be ruled out of order.

Sir David Steel: In support of the plea that the hon. Gentleman is making, can I point out that the guillotine motion allows us exactly 45 minutes to discuss the whole question of compensation? The Minister of State has just circulated a 14-page document on compensation, which I have just received. Are we seriously expected to deal with a complicated issue affecting so many people in 45 minutes flat?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman almost makes my case for me, but not in its entirety. I have received the same document, but I have not got around to reading it. Much that I want to refer to is impossible to cover in any way other than during the debate on the allocation of time. My complaint is that the length of time allocated by the Government is totally unreasonable and has nothing to do with democracy, rationality, a logical approach or even technical expertise. Frankly, I am gravely disappointed in the Government. I am even more disappointed in my own party.
My point is that the kind of cautious approach used in London is important. Adult cautions are checked—in other words, if a person has received a caution, it stays on the record. Strangely enough, we know that Mr. Hamilton had cautions aplenty, but that is another matter. The police in London check the police national computer to find out about convictions, and Infos, the intelligence pool. They check the general registry, a library of all surplus files of unfounded allegations. They do all those checks to find out whether Jack the lad is suitable for the issue of a firearms certificate. So Jack the lad simply needs to move out of London and down to Essex or up to Yorkshire—or even to Teesside. He can then start the process again, and if the local constabulary is not as diligent as the London police, the certificate can be issued. There is no central register to show up such a dangerous practice.
Section 7 permits allow a person to hold a shotgun or a firearm temporarily—usually if someone has died and the weapon is in their effects. A certain Member of this House died not a right long time ago and a huge German machine gun was found in his cellar, along with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. His heirs had to deal with it sensibly.

Mr. George Robertson: Who was it?

Mr. Cook: I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend, because he has a practice of disclosing names from the Dispatch Box. I would prefer to keep the name to myself. I shall tell my hon. Friend at a later date.
Section 7 permits give an inheritor time to get rid of the inheritance. Strangely, the police have no legal powers to make any enforcement on storage or notification of disposal. That is another area that has not been dealt with.
Different ages apply to different certificates. That is confusing, and the matter could have done with some attention. The House may be surprised to learn that a shotgun certificate can be granted at birth, whereas a firearms certificate cannot be granted before the age of 14. That is not dealt with in the Bill.
Someone with a firearms certificate can be given a firearm at the age of 14, when they get the certificate. Someone with a shotgun certificate cannot be given a shotgun until the age of 15. That is another strange anomaly that could have been dealt with if any real thought had been given to the Bill.
Someone without a firearms certificate cannot borrow a firearm, even if they are supervised by a certificate holder, until the age of 17. However, someone without a shotgun certificate can borrow a shotgun, if supervised, from birth. A two-year-old can run around legally with a borrowed shotgun. That is yet another issue that is not covered. I could go on with other examples of negligence.
There is almost no control over shotgun ammunition. Having purchased ammunition, I could give any hon. Member 1,000 rounds without breaking the law. However, I am not allowed to give anyone even one round of firearms ammunition—not even .22 ammunition. I can insist that firearms ammunition is stored securely, but no one can legally insist that shotgun ammunition is stored securely. That is yet another example of negligence by the Government and the Opposition.
The police cannot put additional conditions on shotgun certificates, so we cannot insist on where they are stored, whereas we can with firearms. We therefore do not know

where shotguns will be if we have to look for them. The police cannot limit the number of shotguns on a shotgun certificate, so it is possible for one shotgun certificate holder to buy hundreds of shotguns with no check on where they go. Anyone can set up as a supplier to Jack the lad in the underworld.
The police have no statutory right to enter and inspect the secure storage facilities of firearms or shotguns. A licence holder can legally refuse to let the police check whether he has a gun safe in which to store his weapons.
There are further examples of negligence. I am sorry if I am boring the House, but it is important that the catalogue of negligence should be known to the public. People think that we are going to protect them. I am trying to highlight the fact that we are doing anything but that.
Most of our European neighbours, who suffer much criticism here from time to time for all sorts of reasons, insist on the granting of a hunting licence before setting someone loose with a hunting weapon. To get a licence, people have to undergo a period of training and monitoring. A pistol licence holder must pass a similar six-month probation period at a pistol club here before the police will issue a licence, so we know that an applicant can handle firearms properly.
If someone applies for a shotgun or rifle licence, the police have no way of checking that the applicant knows which end of the gun is dangerous or even one end from the other, or whether he or she knows which species are protected and which can be exterminated.
I have mentioned a number of matters, and I could go on, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak on the limitation of time motion. Perhaps most important—I seem to have lost the papers, so I will have to speak from memory—is the fact that—

Mr. David Winnick: Disassembly.

Mr. Cook: It is not dissembling, and that is a fact—it could be disassembly.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am finding my hon. Friend's contribution fascinating, as I am ignorant on these matters—[Interruption.] I know a great deal about more things than most of those sluggish lads on the Conservative Benches. I am finding my hon. Friend's speech fascinating, and I am prepared to wait until he finds the lost papers.

Madam Speaker: I am not.

Mr. Cook: There is no need, Madam Speaker. I said that I would speak from memory, and I will do just that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for his intervention, in so far as it shows his experience and knowledge of the theatrical and the voice from the wings.

Mr. Faulds: Never from the wings—centre stage.

Mr. Cook: I am sure that, in another incarnation, my hon. Friend will acquire safe employment as the prompter.
I started my observations on negligence by commenting that there was no central register of licence holders—a grave weakness, as I pointed out, because Jack the lad can


run about. What is probably even worse is the fact that there is no central register of the weapons. We have never had one, and it is not proposed that there should be one. Perhaps the Government's reluctance to accept that principle is born of their doctrinaire attitude towards deregulation.
We are told that there could be 4 million illegal weapons out there, and that there are perhaps 120,000 certificated weapons. Without a central register, we are making those 120,000 weapons illegal—adding them to the 4 million which are already illegal. We do not have an account of any of them, and we do not propose to have one. We are making a bad situation worse, and we are making it worse in a hurry. We are not allowing anyone to talk about it sensibly. When people try to put a sensible point, they get shakes of the head, as I am getting from my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
I appeal for common sense. For God's sake, people out there need protection, and it is our duty to give it. We are not doing so at the moment.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I agree with every word that passed the lips of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). This is a bad Bill, which has been badly considered.
At least some of my hon. Friends will be concerned about the wider problem of creating an unnecessary confrontation between this House and the House of Lords. We who are anxious to preserve our constitution and its checks and balances should realise what a grave disservice we are doing with this guillotine motion.
When the House of Lords says that it is not sure that we have got something right, amends our legislation and sends it back to us, it is saying in the politest possible way, "Please think again; we think you might have got this wrong." Sometimes that is said especially insistently, as when the Bill or the amendments we have passed obviously do not have the support of a decision at a general election or of the people.
When we are in our most populist—and especially our agreed populist—mood, when we are at our worst and most tyrannical, the House of Lords says, "Hang on a moment. Think again, and please discuss the matter more carefully." Surely we as Tories should understand the importance of that request, yet we are giving the matter a cursory debate on a guillotine, after which we plan to have a short, truncated discussion on a few selected items, which, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, will be kept even shorter by the agreed discouragement that will be evinced from the Front Benches against every dissident voice; so 50,000 people will go unrepresented because of the gross tyranny of the House.
We who most of all represent the checks and balances of the constitution should draw back from an unnecessary confrontation.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the 50,000 people. I wonder what he would say to a couple I met in my constituency, near the hon. Gentleman's: Martyn and Barbara Dunn, who came to a ceremony to commemorate the massacre at Dunblane, in which they lost their five-year-old daughter Charlotte. They are very

keen on what we intend to do, as are all the other parents who lost children. What would the hon. Gentleman say to those parents, who believe that what the House intends to do is right, and that, although there is no guarantee that such a massacre will never occur again, it is one way of trying to prevent events such as happened at Hungerford and at Dunblane?

Mr. Budgen: I would try to be as sympathetic as I possibly could, and I would explain to them that I understood entirely their wish to have the use of all guns banned; but I would say that people who engaged in the lawful and honourable activity of target shooting were entitled to continue to do that. I would say at the end of the conversation, as quietly and as carefully as I could, that as a matter of fact I thought that their appalling tragedy probably did not make them better judges of legislation, and that it might indeed make them worse judges. I would say that, fortunately, we have in general a rather good system of considering legislation in a way that is somewhat detached from their raw emotions, and that the most important thing was to consider legislation carefully and not in a mood of deep emotion. I think that, on reflection, they would understand that.
If the hon. Gentleman says that that is not so, it might be of some interest to him to note that, after the Duke of Edinburgh had made some remarks about the legislation some time just before Christmas, it was obvious that the public as a whole took a more reflective attitude.
In our constitution, it is not only the newspapers, the royal family and others who have a right to comment; it is the legitimate interest of the other place to ask us to think again. If we pass this guillotine motion, we are palpably not thinking again.
The other place faces a difficult tactical question about which issues to disagree with us on, but I hope that it will not disagree with us about the Crime (Sentences) Bill, because the proviso in that case—the argument as between exceptional circumstances and circumstances that are unjust—is not a big issue. While great lawyers make great fortunes arguing the difference between such words, it perhaps does not affect many people.
Perhaps we could say respectfully to the other place that there is some presumption in its proposals for extra compensation. If £500 million of public expenditure is to be made, it should be authorised by this place, not the House of Lords. However, if we reject the Lords amendment on disassembly, I hope that their Lordships will persist with it.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend suggested that 50,000 people were affected, a point that was picked up by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The figure of 50,000 firearms certificate holders is merely the Home Office figure, not the real number of firearms certificate holders affected, which is more like 100,000. To those one must add the number of people who legitimately shoot with pistols in recognised and registered clubs, who do not need firearms certificates. The matter goes far wider than the 50,000 people my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was trying to put my point as moderately as possible. When I mentioned figures, I wanted to quote the lower end of the scale.
I hope that their Lordships will recognise that, whether it is 50,000 or 100,000, it is not a fashionable section of the community. I hope that they will consider how they would feel if that many game shooters were being prevented from carrying on their lawful activity.
I do not want to put this offensively to their Lordships, but it would be sad if the suspicion arose that because, by and large, these are unfashionable people, their Lordships were not prepared to exercise their proper duty to prevent populist legislation, but that, in a future Parliament where hunting or game shooting was threatened, they would come bustling along to exercise their constitutional rights. The 50,000 involved are honourable people, who have been treated in a disgraceful, hurried and populist way. I hope that their Lordships will go very slowly in considering the measure.
On this point, I am able to join the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who, last Wednesday, in discussing the Police Bill—which had come from the Lords—sensibly asked why a Firearms (Amendment) Bill could not be introduced at the beginning of the next Parliament. I agree entirely. One could be introduced slowly and carefully. If their Lordships suggested that other measures could be brought forward in the interim, I would agree.
The House knows that the Home Office firearms consultative committee was not invited to give its opinion on the Cullen report. The proposals were rushed out. We could in the interim tighten the rules on the qualities and characters of people who own firearms certificates. There could be some extra surveillance of the membership of gun clubs. All those things have been suggested as sensible administrative measures by the committee.
I do not want it to be suggested for a moment that I am indifferent to the arguments of those who fear the repetition of a crime by one of the relatively small number of people who hold guns legally. We all know that the generality—96 per cent.—of crimes are committed by people who hold guns illegally.
There are small measures that could be taken between now and Christmas to introduce some discipline to those who hold guns lawfully. Most importantly, I suggest that Conservative Members should avoid an unnecessary confrontation with their Lordships. If their Lordships are exercising their proper constitutional duty, they will come to the aid of 50,000 people who have been treated very shabbily.

Mr. Peter Brooke: As my right hon. Friend the Minister—it is a great pleasure to address her in that way—will recall, I was not called to speak on the original guillotine motion. I do not complain about that; I was sitting where the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), usually sits, and I understand completely why I was overlooked.
On that occasion, I would have followed my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in the debate, and I would have spoken about the effect on people who are following the proceedings on the Bill of the speed with which a series of guillotine motions have obliged us to consider it.
I remonstrated thereafter with an hon. Friend—whom I shall anonymously call a representative of the business managers—that we had insufficient time in which to debate the matters properly. He said that no one else had made that complaint. Our conversation occurred before Third Reading, when I know for certain that several hon. Members—including me, incidentally—were kept out of the debate.
More seriously, I recall the debate on compensation. I mentioned the matter on Report, and I do so again now because of the debate that we shall have this evening. About 10 minutes before the end of the debate on Report, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—I do not accuse him of having orchestrated the scenario deliberately—declined to give way to an hon. Friend who sought to intervene, on the ground that he did not have sufficient time. It is ironic that the guillotine motion should have the effect of saving my right hon. and learned Friend from the obligation of replying properly to the debate.
We shall have the compensation debate this evening. I do not share the advantage of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) or of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) in having seen the 14-page document. The good news is that I calculate that we will have an hour and a quarter for the compensation debate rather than 45 minutes, so we shall have slightly more time in which to absorb the details.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the document, which was courteously sent to some hon. Members who participated in the debate, opens Pandora's box.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment, and I anticipate reading the document all the more. I simply repeat that, given the interest that the public have expressed in these matters, it is unfortunate that we should give the impression that we are rushing them through without proper consideration.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister very courteously sent this letter to me today. It states:
I am enclosing for your information a copy of a consultation document which sets out our proposals for the detailed arrangements for the firearms compensation scheme to be introduced under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The document will be used as a basis for consultation by the Home Office with the police and shooting organisations. I am sending copies to all those who participated when the issue of compensation was debated on the Floor of the House. A copy is also being placed in the Library".
Why did that letter arrive after lunch on 18 February—the day that we are debating the matter? Even at first glance, there are all sorts of questions to he asked. It would be improper to abuse a debate on the timetable by asking too many detailed questions. However, before we limit ourselves to three quarters of an hour of debating time, I refer to options B and C. Option B is payment based on a price contained in a published list of values and option C is payment based on individual valuation.
We have received no clear answer—at least I have not heard it—to a question posed by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and many others as to who


would do that evaluation. There is cheerful talk about evaluation, but precisely who will do it? The idea that it will be agreed easily and automatically is fairyland.
What about paragraph 14, on ex gratia payments? The letter states:
He could either choose to lodge his pistol with the police pending its retrieval for use in an approved club, or he could choose to surrender ownership straight away and seek an ex gratia payment for it at the same time as any claim for compensation in respect of higher calibre guns is made.
Who will decide that ex gratia payment? We are talking about a great deal of money.
The list that accompanies the letter purports to give valuations on a range of guns—for example, the Astra 3 in barrel, the Colt new service and the Colt diamond back 6 in. I was told off the cuff today, just after receiving the document, that the figures given for valuation are totally unrealistic. For example, the Cold diamond back 6 in is valued at £235, but I have been told that we are talking about thousands if the owner's perceived valuation is to be gone along with. Owners will challenge the valuations.
I do not know whether all those matters should be confined to three quarters of an hour. As I make these points, I have a suspicion that someone else might properly be called during that period and most of us will not have time to make such points. Given that she has written to us in that way, I ask the Minister whether it is sensible to limit the highly controversial issue of compensation to three quarters of an hour.

Mr. Roger Gale: I have not spoken in these debates before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I hope that you will allow me a few minutes in which to explain why I am so deeply concerned about the manner in which the debate on an extremely important piece of legislation is about to be truncated, if the House wills it so. Clearly, there will not be time for the consideration of amendments that might mitigate what will become an appalling piece of legislation if it goes through unamended.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sought an answer to the question, "How would we feel if …?" and then related the experience of two of his constituents and their appalling loss. I am the parent of three children; I have had the pleasure of watching them grow to maturity and I freely concede that I cannot begin to comprehend the anguish of the parents of Dunblane. Most of those who say, "I know how you feel," are, in my view, guilty of uttering an obscene platitude. Thank God, there are few hon. Members who have suffered anything like that sort of experience and can therefore begin to understand how others feel.
The House must do all it can to pass legislation that seeks to mitigate the possibility of a tragedy like Dunblane happening again, but we all know that in a world of madmen, whatever we do in this House cannot prevent that. Like many other hon. Members, I started out with high hopes that we would achieve something positive with the Bill, but I am concerned that the Bill will do nothing to prevent a similar recurrence and that it will do that nothing at vast expense and at great cost to an enormous number of respectable and responsible people.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), during the months that the Bill has been passing through Parliament, I have had time to realise that it is knee-jerk legislation that will go down in the annals of the House of Commons as second only to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in its appalling misconception and haste. As before, we have seen the House at its worst—when it combines to take a cross-party "I care more than you do" approach and rushes a measure through as a sop to an appalling event.
I am not a shooter—I have only ever handled a gun on military service and on the rare occasions when I have missed clay pigeons for the benefit of charity—so I have no personal vested interest in the subject. However, I have spoken to some of my constituents who are members of Swalecliffe gun club, which is located in Herne Bay in my constituency. Following a meeting with them at the end of October 1996, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 2 November 1996, asking a series of questions related directly to the compensation issues that we are about to timetable.
The Minister of State replied to me yesterday. Let me make it plain that I am grateful to her, first for the courteous nature of her reply and, secondly, for turning that reply round within about 12 hours of the letter landing on her desk. However, it has taken some months for me to receive these replies.
I raised the specific issue of what would happen to .22 pistols belonging to members of gun clubs that would go out of existence, and who would therefore have nowhere to go with them, and I asked what compensation those people would receive. I was told—hon. Members who know more about the subject than I do may be aware of this already:
As most clubs will be unable to comply with the security requirements, initially, it is intended that the police will retain the .22 pistols in safe storage for those who are seeking a club. The time these will be retained has yet to be set, but we expect it to be a matter of years rather than months in order to give clubs time to adapt to the new requirements.
However, my right hon. Friend continues:
In most cases, this will require the construction of a purpose-built secure range rather than the adaptation of existing ranges. Rather than a number of local ranges and small clubs, it is expected that ranges, and probably clubs, will be organised at a county or regional level. The cost of security arrangements for each club would thus be shared among a more substantial number of shooters. Members of such clubs may have to travel considerable distances to shoot, but in this respect .22 shooting will be similar to ice-skating and other sports where appropriate facilities are rare and concentrated in large towns.
If amendment No. 27 is passed tonight, the members of Swalecliffe gun club, and no doubt others represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will lose their facilities, and the fruits of the hard work that they have put in, without compensation—and because that amendment is one of a group of four, we shall not have more than about 45 minutes in which to raise those issues.
I was under the impression that acquisition without compensation was something that even the Opposition had eschewed as a form of political combat. Acquisition without compensation is being done in the name of a piece of legislation that will not have the effect that we intended. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) rightly said that this piece of legislation will not establish registers. It will not do what the


Metropolitan police would like. It will not prevent the circulation of illegal firearms. It will not prevent lunatics from going across the channel, for heaven's sake, buying a gun and bringing it back through the ports in my constituency, or the port in the Home Secretary's constituency, with the greatest possible ease, and making mayhem with it.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I agree with many of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. He may have received correspondence from constituents—as I have from many of mine, especially sporting shooters who compete for the United Kingdom, who shoot not only at Bisley, but elsewhere—who are especially anxious about difficulties that would be caused to them by rejection of the disassembly option. Does my hon. Friend agree that we shall not have time to discuss that issue properly if the motion is passed?

Mr. Gale: I do; and if the motion is passed, we shall not have the opportunity to discuss further the matter of single-shot guns.
I shall not detain the House, but I am very worried that, if we choose to truncate our discussion, we shall end up with another Dangerous Dogs Act piece of legislation—an appalling mess, which will achieve absolutely nothing.

Mr. Jack Straw: Since the Conservatives entered government in 1979, 60 Bills have been guillotined. On 59 of them, Conservative Members have remained silent during the debate except in support of the guillotine, and have trooped through the Government Lobby in support of those measures. It speaks volumes for the sense of value of the Conservative party that they remained silent on one measure after another to cut benefits for 16 to 18-year-olds; silent on one measure after another to restrict the rights of innocent seekers of immigration into this country; wholly silent on the Scottish poll tax measure in 1986; and completely silent on the English and Welsh poll tax measure in 1987.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: And the Single European Act.

Mr. Straw: Indeed, Conservative Members were almost silent—there were one or two honourable exceptions—on the Single European Act. In 1986, the Home Secretary, among others, forced the Act through the House, notwithstanding predictions from Opposition Members—including, in an eloquent winding-up speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Then there was the Maastricht Bill, the Bill that became the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. All Conservative Members voted for the guillotine motion, thus truncating debate on a critical constitutional measure. [Interruption.] Nearly all of them voted for it.
The issues in the Bill that we are debating today have, on any relative basis, been subjected to far more discussion than the issues in the Bills that I have just listed. It raises the crucial question of the control of handguns and the safety of the public. And what do we find? We find that suddenly, out of the Lobbies and the Smoking Room creep Conservative Members who want

to stand up for what they see as a fundamental liberty: the right of Englishmen, and indeed Scotsmen and Welshmen, to hold guns. They did not believe that any fundamental rights were affected by the Maastricht Bill, the Single European Act, the Bills introducing the poll tax in England and Scotland or any of the immigration Bills.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman was pointing at me; he obviously wished to give way to me, and I am grateful to him for doing so.
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that we are debating the Bill unusually soon after a report? As I said earlier, the Cullen report came out at 3.30 pm, and the legislation was presented to the House at 3.31 on the same afternoon. Might it not have been better if we had had a period in which to consider the report before the legislation was framed? That, of course, is why we are rushing it through now.

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman has a quarrel, it is with his own party, but if he thinks about the time scale that is involved, he will see that the argument that the House is rushing the legislation through is nonsense. That appalling tragedy happened on 13 March last year; the Cullen inquiry was then rightly established very quickly, but did not take evidence until the end of May. I understand that it then took evidence until the end of July. Lord Cullen finalised his report in September and delivered it in October, and on 16 October both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland made statements in the House. I think that the Government were quite right to give their response to the report on that occasion: the same would be expected of any Government.
The legislation was presaged in the Queen's Speech two weeks later, and was introduced two weeks after that. It was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House for a day and a half, and then went into Standing Committee. It was further considered on the Floor of the House, and was then discussed in the other place for four days: that debate fills four full parts of Hansard. Now the Bill has come back to the Floor of the House of Commons. Given its importance, I feel that our proceedings should be concluded in the next week or so, but plenty of other measures of even more breadth and significance have not been given the same consideration during a guillotined set of debates.

Mr. Frank Cook: If that is true, may I ask my hon. Friend for his reaction to the nine areas of negligence that I identified earlier? Those matters could have been considered properly, and could have formed legislation much more sensible than the Bill that we are considering. Those weaknesses are apparent, although I could dig others out of the legislation if my hon. Friend wished me to. The nine areas have not been covered, and will not be covered. If the coverage of the legislation was as comprehensive as my hon. Friend makes out, why were they not attended to?

Mr. Straw: I listened to my hon. Friend's speech very carefully, but I did not follow his argument. No legislation with which I have ever been familiar has been perfect, and I am sure that this Bill could be improved. It may well be that my hon. Friend could have tabled amendments to extend control in some areas, but I do not think that that


is an argument for the extra control that is at the heart of the Bill. If my hon. Friend believes that there ought to be improvements in certification, that is a matter for him, and one that could have been dealt with much earlier.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, correctly, that we must make a judgment about the views of the other place in coming to decisions on the Commons' consideration of Lords amendments. That is entirely right, but let me reassure him about one matter. His point—I paraphrase, but only slightly—was that the toffs in the other place had not properly represented the common people: they had approved of control of handguns, which are used in general by common people, but they had protected the owners of shotguns, which are used by the more elevated classes in our society.
The only reason for the amendments coming before the House today is the action of the hereditary peers in pushing the amendments through. Often, amendments passed in the other place against the Government are passed by a majority of life peers and, as happened in the case of the poll tax, it is usually the hereditary peers who are dragooned into the Not Content Lobby in support of the Government. On this Bill, the reverse is the case.
On the first Division, that to allow the disassembly of .22-calibre firearms, 153 peers voted Content, and 139 voted Not Content, but of those 153, 105 were hereditary peers. If the hereditary peers are stripped out, it is clear that the first amendment on disassembly—to diminish the control in the Bill—was actually defeated by some 90 votes, a reversal of the position if the hereditary peers are included.
The same applies to the other key amendment that was passed in the other place, on extending compensation for loss of profit and loss of business. It was passed by 121 votes to 110, but 90 of those 121 were hereditary peers; only 31 were life peers. On the life peer measure alone, the vote was 31 to 77.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the advantages of the hereditary peerage is that hereditary peers are not full-time professional politicians, as are, unfortunately, the bulk of the present Members of this House? Hereditary peers probably know a great deal more about the practicalities of using weapons than do any of us, and their view is likely to be helpful to the protection of what the hon. Gentleman calls the common man.
The important point is that, as these are the last weeks of this Parliament, we cannot exercise our powers under the Parliament Act 1911. If the peers decide to go slow and not to accept our attitude towards their amendments, the legislation will fall.

Mr. Straw: I do not believe that that will happen.
The debate has revealed a high degree of anxiety on the part of Conservative Members about what they believe to be the extent of public opinion. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that public opinion has shifted. I do believe, however, that the shooting lobby has become more organised and more frenetic in its letter writing.
I have a letter which, I gather, is to be found on the Internet site of the Sportsmans Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The letter goes into detail about the way in which those reading it should lobby Conservative Members of Parliament. It states that it is important for its members to write to Conservative Members of Parliament, and continues:
We can only do that through a massive effort over the next five days. The Conservative Central Office do not believe that we have the numbers or the commitment to vote them out.
Further on in the letter, these chilling words appear:
Be polite but do not leave them"—
that is, Conservative Members of Parliament—
in doubt. Spell out exactly how you will be taking revenge if they"—
Conservative Members of Parliament—
put this Bill on the books.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Rowe: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am sorry; I do not have time to give way.
I do not believe that the use of the word "revenge" against Conservative Members of Parliament is an acceptable tactic. It exposes some of the motives and the hysteria of the shooting lobby.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman if I informed him that the words "revenge at the polls" were—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That was an attempt to intervene after the hon. Gentleman had refused to give way.

Mr. Straw: It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman claims part authorship or knowledge of the letter, but what is on the record at the Internet site is not "revenge at the polls", just "revenge". [Interruption.] I gather that it has changed, no doubt because the association realised the error in its drafting.
In the hysterical reaction from some—not all—members of the shooting lobby, there has been a huge amount of disinformation about the likely position of the Government and the Labour party on the wider issue of the control of guns in our society. The Government must speak for themselves, but I believe that what is in the Bill, with the exception of the control of .22 calibre handguns, is proportionate to the problem.
The Labour party has never believed that such bans on the use of guns should be extended to shotguns. I make that absolutely clear. We respect the right of those who own shotguns for the control of vermin and for the enjoyment of country sports. We have no proposals to change that regime.
In three weeks' time, we shall see the first anniversary of the terrible shooting at Dunblane. We owe it to the memory of those who were gunned down there, and to their relatives and the community of Dunblane, to have this measure on the statute book before then. We support the guillotine motion.

Miss Widdecombe: As I have only four minutes left to reply, I regret that it will not be possible for me to address every single point that was raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested that there should be further delay because of growing public interest since the Bill was introduced. It has been a year since the tragedy at Dunblane, and it is quite right that the public should expect us to come forward with proposals to try, as far as possible, to avert any similar tragedy in the future, although it must be clear that that could never be absolutely guaranteed.
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said about the responsible nature of those who have interests in shooting. I have no doubt at all—nor have the Government—that the vast majority of people who shoot are law-abiding, decent citizens who can be utterly trusted and are utterly responsible. The fact remains that the problems at Dunblane arose through somebody misusing a gun that was lawfully owned and possessed outside a secure club.

Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.

Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman interrupts from a sedentary position, perhaps I can now come to his speech.
The hon. Gentleman recited a long list of matters that he said that we had neglected, but in today's debate, in Lords amendment No. 71, we shall address the issue of a central register. If he reads the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, he will see that we covered the issue of age limits. It is not true that a long list of matters have been ignored in the debate. Therefore, I reject his proposition that we need more time to discuss them, as many of them have already been discussed in some detail in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) raised a point about the transitional period for the holding of .22s by the police. The current schedule 1 to the Bill sets out a transitional period of a year for the holding of .22s, although that could be varied by order of the Secretary of State if necessary. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
Several hon. Members said that they wished to have longer to discuss compensation. That issue has been thoroughly rehearsed.
Two hon. Members mentioned the consultation document that we issued today. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) lamented the fact that there was not time to debate the document or to absorb it in any detail in time for today's debate. The document is, of course, intended for a much wider audience. It is not about what we are to implement or what the law should say, but is about how the implementation is to take place—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [18 November].

Question agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 6

HAVING SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOL OUTSIDE PREMISES OF LICENSED PISTOL CLUB

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 3, line 6, at end insert
("unless the pistol complies with subsection (2A) below.")

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): In accordance with the allocation of time order just agreed by the House, Lords amendment No. 8 will be grouped with Lords amendment No. 12. We shall also discuss the Government motions to disagree with those amendments.

Mr. Howard: The question of disassembly of handguns has been thoroughly discussed during the passage of the Bill both in this House and in another place. The Government's position has been and remains that small-calibre pistols in their complete form should be stored in secure licensed clubs. Allowing members of licensed small-calibre pistol clubs to keep the main body of the pistol at home and remove only a small part for retention at their club cannot in our view provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of the public.

Sir Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. and learned Friend addressed the opposite proposition that the body of the pistol should be kept at the club and a small part only retained at home?

Mr. Howard: Yes. Indeed, it was canvassed as early as on Second Reading, when the point was put to me by—I think—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). It is not the specific proposal contained in the amendment and I am rather doubtful about what purpose it would achieve. It would attract many of the disadvantages that the proposal specifically identified in the amendment would attract.
The Government entirely accept that members of pistol clubs licensed under the Bill would be overwhelmingly decent, law-abiding people, just as the members of pistol clubs that are allowed under the current law are overwhelmingly decent, law-abiding people. We have all, however, seen the appalling consequences that can ensue when a pistol owner is determined to perpetrate serious crime with his lawfully held gun.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The gun was certainly lawfully held, but the process by which Hamilton obtained the certificate was ludicrously slack. Had that man's record been considered by the police in granting the certificate, he would never have had the licence.

Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. That was of course considered by the police, and Lord Cullen went into that aspect of the matter very carefully


in his report. It is of course right that those matters should be addressed as well, but I do not believe that they would provide a complete answer to the problems with which we have to deal.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is not anybody who lies on an application form for a firearms certificate committing an offence? If a certificate is granted thereafter, is not that certificate, by definition, invalid? Was that not so with Hamilton? Is that not what Lord Cullen found? What did Lord Cullen recommend with regard to disassembly?

Mr. Howard: I do not know quite what conclusion my hon. Friend sought to reach on the basis of the first part of his question. The certificate held by Thomas Hamilton was not declared invalid and was therefore quite valid until it had been revoked. I shall come to Lord Cullen's recommendations on the question of disassembly.
In considering their response to Lord Cullen's very thorough inquiry into what happened in Dunblane, the Government took the view that it was right if at all possible to allow the sport of pistol shooting to continue in some form, and the Bill allows for small-calibre pistol clubs, operating under a very high degree of security, to be licensed by the Secretary of State. The question is what should be done with the small calibre .22 handguns that are used at such clubs.
The Government propose that such guns should be kept at secure club premises. Amendments to the Bill in another place would allow club members to keep their handgun at home as long as some part of it was always removed and kept at the club. Under the amendments, that part would be the slide of pistols, the cylinders of revolvers or some other part to be specified by the Secretary of State.
As has been said so many times in discussion of this issue, it would be possible for handguns to be kept in a disassembled form. It is said that most owners of most handguns would be capable in practice of removing the vital part to leave at the club and fitting it again when they returned. The Government do not dispute that, but that is not the real question. The question is whether such a procedure would give the public a sufficient assurance against misuse of a handgun by a club member. The Government's view is that it would not.
For example, some people will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol or possess components that will allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by the simple substitution of components. It would be impossible to be certain that a person could not still possess a complete weapon at home by keeping such an illicit spare. Indeed, the frames of some pistols are specially made so that the owner can purchase a comprehensive range of barrels of different lengths and cartridge chamberings, which can be simply substituted and fitted at the will of the user. That could again lead to a person being in possession of a complete firearm, although appearing to comply with club regulations.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Sir Jerry Wiggin: rose—

Mr. Howard: I will give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a shooter keeping illicit spares would be breaching the conditions of the firearms certificate? If someone is prepared to do that, they may easily do the same for an entire pistol. I am not entirely clear that my right hon. and learned Friend's objection to the disassembly option on those grounds is in fact valid.

Mr. Howard: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, which is serious and substantial. He is right that those who would be engaging in the kind of conduct that I am describing would be in breach of the law. I see the force of the argument that those who are prepared to break the law can obtain access to illegal guns. At the end of the day, my right hon. Friend—and no doubt some other of my hon. Friends—and I may simply have to disagree on the matter. The proposal would place a temptation before those who would be tempted to take advantage of what would rapidly become a loophole in the law. As I shall go on to explain, the difficulties of policing the proposed arrangement would be extreme. I believe that on those grounds we must reject my right hon. Friend's argument, although I see its force, and adhere to the proposals that the Government originally made.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howard: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to make some more progress and finish the point.
Furthermore, under a scheme of the kind contemplated under the amendments, it would be the responsibility of the club to ensure that the detached component parts were lodged safely and securely and that they were always handed in when the member left the club after shooting. The club would also have to check each time that what was handed in was the component part that was supposed to be handed in and not a duplicate of some kind.
Right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that the items that we are talking about are relatively small and easily concealable pieces of metal. Clubs would of course be under a legal responsibility, set out in the terms of their licences, to ensure that booking in and out was done properly. A club that did not meet that very important responsibility would be at risk of losing its licence. If a club were not meeting the necessary standards in that respect, it would however be difficult in practice for the police to detect it. In practice, it would be a matter of what happened at the club day after day and not just on the days when a police officer was there and able to see what was going on.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am seriously trying very hard to follow the logic and make it stand up to scrutiny. The Home Secretary objects to keeping a component at home and the barrel or the chassis of the


gun in a club. What is to stop a person who really wants to break the law having a legal gun at the club and an illegal one at home? The whole proposition is totally nonsensical.

Mr. Howard: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who put the same point. Some people may not want to procure an illegal gun, but may be tempted by the possibility of having an illegally held part.

Mr. John Carlisle: How many?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend asks how many. The difficulty with that argument is that takes only one to engage in such activity, to procure a gun and to use it in the way in which it was used at Dunblane.

Mr. Carlisle: I confess that I can hardly believe what I am hearing from my right hon. and learned Friend. We have surely gone past the argument about legislating on the basis of whether people may be tempted to take a gun in one form or another. Either my right hon. and learned Friend believes in this legislation or he does not. I suspect that the force of argument from the Conservative Benches is beginning to get to him. Will he be tempted to think again about disassembly, and possibly to accept the Lords amendment?

Mr. Howard: I am sorry to have to disabuse my hon. Friend. I do not follow his argument that we should not legislate on the basis of temptations that may be put in people's way. We legislate on the basis of the view that we take of human behaviour: that is what all legislation is about. My hon. Friend and I may disagree about the precise aspect of human behaviour with which we are dealing, but such a judgment is the basis on which all legislation is passed in the House.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary is right to detect an attempt to weaken his legislation. I am bound to say that, if he had decided to ban all handguns, he would not be in this difficulty. If it was the other way round, and disassembly involved the bulk of the gun being in the club and the component being outside the club, would that strengthen instead of weaken the legislation? I realise that that is not in the amendment, but has he considered that point?

Mr. Howard: I have considered that point, and I dealt with it a few moments ago when it was put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. When the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, I expected him to say that the legislation did not go far enough, and that we should have a total ban, and he duly fulfilled my expectation.
The difficulty is that however well the club carries out its responsibilities, there will be scope for an owner who has a mind to do so illicitly to take out the pistol slide, a revolver cylinder or some other small component. He may attempt to substitute it with something else, and he could do that in a variety of ways. There is no point endlessly speculating about how that could be done, but one possibility—it is only one possibility—has already been mentioned in a discussion of this issue. It could be substituted with the same component taken from a deactivated version of the same gun. The differences in

appearance between a working and a deactivated component part are not necessarily large. Indeed, it is said to be one of the advantages of a deactivated gun, to those who like to possess them, that they look as much as possible like the real thing.
An owner determined upon mischief could disguise the deactivated component so that it looked on superficial inspection like the real one. It would not have to work like the real component, just look like it.

Dame Jill Knight: I must place on record the fact that I hardly ever disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I simply cannot follow the force of his argument that we cannot proceed with legislation if some people may contravene it. That is what he is saying. We all know that it is possible for people to get hold of guns even if they have no right to have them. That will happen whatever my right hon. and learned Friend does in the Bill. I cannot follow the argument that, because some people may break the law, what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said is not reasonable. Whatever happens, some people will break the law.

Mr. Howard: I suspect that it pains me to disagree with my hon. Friend even more than it may pain her. Her point is not valid, because we have to make judgments about the effect of the laws that we pass on the behaviour of those with whom we are attempting to deal. If it is a consequence of one law rather than another that temptation is likely to be increased, and therefore likely to be succumbed to, and that that is likely to lead to more guns coming into the hands of people who might abuse them, we must take that into account. It is a matter of judgment, and my hon. Friend may legitimately arrive at a different judgment and disagree with me. It is a valid consideration, and it should be taken into account in framing the precise terms of the legislation.

Mr. Michael Stern: The force of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is that it is more important to remove temptation from people who he and the Minister of State have said on many occasions are the least likely people to succumb to that temptation. A large group of people will be tempted: my right hon. and learned Friend has already admitted that such people regard the legislation as totally irrelevant. They will use illegal guns. Why is he aiming at the small group of people who are the least likely to succumb to temptation?

Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we are ignoring the enormous problems that undoubtedly exist as a consequence of the use of illegal guns. We recognise the dimension of that serious problem, and the police do their utmost to deal with it every working day of the year. The fact that they are not totally successful, for reasons which we all understand, does not relieve the House of the responsibility of dealing with another aspect of the problem, which is the


circumstances under which firearms should be made lawfully available. It is not either/or: we have to deal with both problems as effectively as we can.

Mr. Barnes: What about the temptation of raiding a gun club? If a gun club that holds complete guns is raided, that is far more dangerous than taking away bits and pieces.

Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman knows, stringent security will be put in place to deal with that problem. I am not sure that the temptation to raid a gun club for whole guns would be that much greater than the temptation to raid a gun club for the main body of the gun, which is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells suggested. But the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: I shall give way, but we are on a timetable motion. Many hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to take up their time.

Sir Terence Higgins: It is not our fault that there is a timetable motion: it is my right hon. and learned Friend's fault. We had the ludicrous position just now of the Minister of State saying that she could not give an answer because she was about to be cut off by the guillotine motion. The whole thing is farcical.
If people have a criminal intent, why should they bother to raid a gun club for a .22 when they could perfectly well buy a .38 or a .44 illegally?

Mr. Howard: I have sought to answer that point. It is the same point as was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. I do not think that the world is divided quite as neatly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) suggests, into those who are prepared to engage in illegal conduct and who would undoubtedly take advantage of the fact that illegal guns are available, and those who behave lawfully and would not stray from the law at all. Others who do not fit neatly into that category would be tempted by the circumstances that I have sought to explain. I think that that justifies our approach.
There has been a good deal of discussion of the advice that the Government have received on this issue from the Forensic Science Service. It believes that it would be an extremely difficult task to police these procedures fully and effectively at club level. The procedures would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual.
The Government have also taken advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales. It concludes that
disassembly is incapable of being policed.
It too has concerns about a club policing this policy and there would be little to stop a person having two slides, one at a club and one at home. The smallness of these parts makes them easily concealable. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has similar concerns

about disassembly providing insufficient safeguards for the public. Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both held their guns lawfully. Either could have been capable of obtaining or concealing component parts had the disassembly approach been enforced.
It has been argued that the Government have gone further than Lord Cullen proposed. In one sense, that is true: Lord Cullen would have permitted single-shot handguns to be kept in the home. In relation to multi-shot handguns, he said:
in stating my own conclusions I should confine myself to what I recommend should be considered … I recommend that consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre … Preferably this should be done by their disablement while they are not in use … If for any reason that course is not to be followed, I see no alternative to considering the more draconian alternative of a ban on multi-shot handguns … directed to the possession of such handguns by individual owners.
The Government have not gone as far as the alternative course that Cullen has envisaged. The Bill will permit the continued possession by individuals of .22 calibre handguns, provided that they are kept at licensed pistol clubs.
The Government have taken the view that the protection of the public should be the priority. The safest position must be to ensure that the entire gun is stored in secure licensed pistol clubs.

5 pm

Mr. Doug Henderson: The debate is about a judgment that the House must make between what exact form of legislation is likely to be the most effective and the rights of the shooting community, balanced against the protection of the public. It is true that the Government and Opposition Front Benchers take a similar approach with the amendment, as will be the case in relation to the next group of amendments. That does not in any way mean that the Government and the Opposition are at one in dealing with the legislation. We both recognise that legislation is necessary because of public demand for action, but there is a difference between our position, which is that there should be a complete ban on handguns, and the Government's position, which is that there should be a ban on guns above .22 calibre. However, we have accepted that the need for legislation on other aspects in the Bill takes priority over our particular position at this time, although we have made commitments in relation to the future. That is why we believe that it is necessary for the Bill to be given passage through Parliament so that it becomes law before the general election.
The Lords amendment would undermine the whole premise of the Bill. It takes the Bill in a different direction. The argument between the Government and the Opposition is on which guns should be banned and which should not. The amendment essentially bans no guns and suggests a different way in which to deal with the problem.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if the amendment on disassembly had been accepted in the first place, we would have had what the Opposition wanted: a total ban on all whole working guns outside gun clubs? It is the simplest, most


straightforward way of achieving that. In failing to achieve the amendment, we have lost the main part of the argument, which is to ban all guns outside gun clubs.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not accept the logic of his argument. There would have been no guarantee that the Government would have accepted that position, even if Opposition Front Benchers had accepted some of the views that were expressed by Labour Members and indeed by Conservative Members, but, in any case, as the Home Secretary showed, such an amendment would not have led to the protection of the public from the use of assembled guns.
Whether we like it or not, vested interests have come into the debate at all stages. We all know that we are dealing with the amendment because of the vote of hereditary peers in another place. If the matter had been left to life peers and others who hold office ex officio there, the result would have been different, so the point that was made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that the peers would have taken a different attitude if this had been about toff shooting rather than the common man shooting does not hold up to examination because, in that instance, the peers have tried to defend a vested interest against the rightful demands of the public.
The argument against disassembling is that it is too easy to obtain a working gun from the parts. It is too easy for someone who has a will to find parts that are interchangeable with the other parts to which they have access.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the demands of the public, where does he stand on capital punishment, as it is clear that the demands of the public would bring that back?

Mr. Henderson: I am not sure that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. If a full debate took place on that matter, the result would be different, but the point at debate here is that Parliament is focusing on the maximum agreement that can possibly be achieved to meet a public demand and to protect the public. What we are arguing about is the extent to which a judgment has to be passed by Parliament on different aspects—the rights of the shooters against the demands of the public and their right to be protected.
The great danger is that, if we do not get this right, the maniac or the person who is unstable and has access to the parts of a gun can assemble a gun and take the same action as we know was taken by the Dunblane murderer.

Mr. Frank Cook: The irresponsible maniac my hon. Friend refers to surely would not have a firearms certificate to start with and would not be allowed membership of a club, so the justification that is being advanced applies not to gun club members but to illegal people who act outside the law. My hon. Friend is trying to justify one thing by quoting something that does not apply to it.

Mr. Henderson: I do not accept my hon. Friend's argument. The point about the maniac is that it is not

obvious that someone is a maniac until he takes some mad action that causes great harm and injury to other members of the public. It is a matter of having regulations and rules that protect the public in between the point where a maniac or a mentally unstable person thinks of taking some action and actually takes that action.

Sir Anthony Grant: The really determined maniac will not bother about assembling a gun. He will go to any pub in the east end and illegally buy a gun that has been imported from behind the iron curtain. Thousands are available illegally.

Mr. Henderson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and we need to take action to toughen up on the illegal holding of guns, but that matter is outside the scope of the debate.
Conservative Members made a point on the question of temptation. In his defence of the Government's position, the Home Secretary said that, where the main barrel was separated from the trigger mechanism, there would be a temptation for someone to break the law. Conservative Members said that it was not a sufficient position for the Home Secretary to defend and that that would not prevent temptation.
I think that the Home Secretary missed the real point, which is made in a submission by the Government's forensic scientist. In a letter to the Home Office dated 18 November 1996, which was made available by the Minister of State in a previous debate, he says:
This procedure would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of the pistol by a determined and motivated individual … Some individuals will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol, or possess components which allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by the simple substitution of components.
It also says, and this is the key point:
unless a club employs a qualified armourer to confirm the bona fide of items at the time of transfer for storage who is also fully aware of the extent of ownership of such accessories by their membership a person could still possess a complete weapon at home even after apparently complying with the regulations.
If the system suggested in Lords amendment No. 8 is introduced, there will be complete confusion in gun clubs about who owns what and which part relates to which gun. Those involved will know about the confusion and that could tempt the person on the verge of taking action such as that in Dunblane into breaking the law. That is why we resisted the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in previous debates, and it is the key argument against the Lords amendment.

Dame Jill Knight: The key argument, for those of us in favour of the Lords amendment, is that if whole guns are kept in one place, that place would be a magnet for the IRA and other gangs. If only a part of a gun is stored at a gun club, the criminals will not know where the other part is, because they will not know the members or who owns which gun. Would it not be more difficult to obtain guns from a gun club if they were split up? That is the crux of the argument.

Mr. Henderson: I accept the point that the hon. Lady is trying to establish, but she is wrong. The legislation is geared towards preventing the mentally unstable, the


maniacs and freaks from abusing legally held guns. I accept that there is some risk that gun clubs will be a focus for criminals if whole guns are kept there, but I hope that the legislation will be tight enough to ensure that gun clubs have sufficient security to make them difficult to penetrate. The hon. Lady's point about the IRA is not relevant, because it can obtain guns, in this country and elsewhere, more easily than by raiding premises that are registered with the police and are heavily alarmed. Such a raid would be a high-profile exercise and dangerous for such an organisation. The hon. Lady's argument cannot be sustained.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Robert Banks: rose—

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and then I shall proceed.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman mentioned public safety. Would not those who live near gun clubs feel that their safety was jeopardised by the closeness of all those weapons, which were capable of being fired and which could fall into the hands of criminals?

Mr. Henderson: As all hon. Members know, people are concerned when anything changes in their community, but the hon. Gentleman's argument is not valid. The chances that a maniac or unstable person could breach the security of a gun club and then use the gun in the immediate locale are low. The location of gun clubs is not significant.

Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend made the point that there are many easier ways for the IRA to obtain firearms than by raiding a gun club. If that is so, can he tell me why the IRA saw fit to raid the armoury of the Parachute Regiment and loot it so effectively?

Mr. Henderson: That is a different situation. I cannot recall the detail of that event, but the judgment of the IRA must have been that the armoury was a relatively easy target, presumably because nobody expected that it would take such a risk. I do not believe that the IRA or similar organisations have a great need for .22 handguns. If they did want such weapons, there would be easier ways to obtain them.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I wish to emphasise that temptation would be caused by the chaos that would be created by a badly policed, bureaucratic system. People who wanted access to guns would know that the system did not work. That point was made by the British Shooting Sports Council in its evidence to the Cullen inquiry, and Lord Kimball, who was the chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee from 1989 to 1994, said on Second Reading in another place:
I can no longer support disassembly as a method of secure storage in the home."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1996; Vol. 576, c. 1317]

In evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers also said that it did not believe that disassembly would be a safe way to protect the public.
The public demand to feel safe. When public concern is recognised by the House, we have a duty to take action and do our best, having weighed up the arguments, to provide legislation before the general election that will give the public some confidence that the likelihood of a repetition of the tragic events in Dunblane last year will be minimised. I hope that the House will approve the Bill tonight and that another place will accept our decision that action should be taken quickly.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary presented one of the worst cases for an amendment that I have heard in the House, but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made an even worse case. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said earlier, when those who sit on the Front Benches get together, let the citizens beware. That has never been more true than on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North mentioned public opinion. Public opinion had not been measured much until the Duke of Edinburgh made a statement about the Bill just before Christmas, after which three polls were carried out. One had 2,780 callers, of whom 68 per cent. agreed with the Duke of Edinburgh. The GMTV poll had 10,000 callers, of whom 75 per cent. agreed with him, and the Sky news poll had 7,000 callers, with 72 per cent. agreeing with him. That is a convincing statement of public opinion. My postbag, which I accept is probably prejudiced, contains many letters that strongly criticise the Bill, and I am not dissatisfied that public opinion is strongly against the legislation.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in a response to those polls on the "Today" programme, it was pointed out that shooting lobby members were using the Internet to ask people to phone in repeatedly by pushing a button? Given that many hon. Members discounted the results of a phone-in television poll on the monarchy—which received more responses and was a much wider survey of opinion in Scotland—and the manipulation to which polls can be subject, is he seriously telling us that such polls are a reliable indicator of public opinion?

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I suppose that, remarkably, the Snowdrop poll was in no way organised. The truth is that the moment a poll is not agreed with, everyone rushes to a conclusion on why there should be some inaccuracy in it. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the "Today" programme, the e-mail message had been placed on the Internet a quarter of an hour after the poll closed. He may believe that shooters are so well organised that they can persuade 20,000 people to respond to a poll, but I must say—as fond as I am of them all—that they are not in that category.

Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary read out some information


that was available yesterday on the web site of the Sportsmans Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which threats were made to Conservative Members that revenge would be taken if they do not vote in a certain way. The message on that web site requests and expects that, in the next week, 80,000 letters will be sent on behalf of the shooting lobby. If the hon. Gentleman's postbag is anything like mine, he will know that a disproportionate number of letters can be generated by a very small number of self-interested people.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am beginning to wonder if some of my colleagues in the debate have been in the House for only five minutes. Have hon. Members never received letters threatening not to vote for us? I should imagine that almost every day I receive a letter saying that someone will not vote for me for one reason or another. That has been going on for a good few years, and they still send such letters. Nevertheless, people threaten. I find nothing wrong in attempting to motivate a lobby—any more than the Snowdrop people deliberately went round and motivated their lobby.
The point that I was trying to make is that I remain satisfied that the vast majority of public opinion—nigh on two thirds or more—firmly believes that the Bill will not satisfy the first requirement: to stop the occurrence of another Dunblane. We should put our minds to that requirement and to that alone.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has quoted Cullen's recommendation. The fact is that Cullen was perfectly content with dismantlement if such action was practical. In the debate on the Bill's Second Reading, the Home Secretary said:
The Government took advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of disabling multi-shot handguns. It concluded that the way forward was unworkable."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 175.]
That conclusion rather surprised those who hold our view. We undertook some work on the matter, and we persuaded the Government. Lady Blatch said:
We do not deny that many pistols can be disassembled by removing some essential component such as the slide assembly or cylinder."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 1997; Vol. 576, c. 337.]
So the practicality argument went down the sink.
The new objection was that the disassembly approach
has the fundamental flaw that, to put it mildly, it would not be difficult for a gun owner to keep an illicit spare at home.—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 784.]
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made that argument again today. What he means is that it is somehow easier to break the law with a part than with a whole gun. However, buying a spare slide assembly or cylinder requires the consent of the local chief officer of police, as he has to grant a variation of the original certificate. There is absolutely no difference between buying another gun and buying a replacement slide or cylinder, as both are strictly controlled by the law.
The Home Secretary's statement also misses the point that the number of illegal guns in the United Kingdom exceeds the number of legal ones. It is easier for a criminal to buy an illegal whole pistol than to buy a legal slide assembly or cylinder.
The Government raised three objections on policing a disassembly system for clubs. The first was that a qualified armourer would have to check the bona fides of

a component part. However, there is no great difficulty in identifying a bona fide component part. The extent of ownership will also be known because it will be declared on a firearms certificate.
The second objection was that an owner could deceive a club official by depositing a deactivated component. However, that is based on the highly contentious idea that deactivated weapons are not easily identified. Deactivated weapons undergo a stringent process to render them incapable of firing a missile. All component parts are deactivated by such means as cutting away two thirds of the slide rail, and all require a distinctive proof mark issued by the Birmingham proof house or the London proof house. Anyone accustomed to handling guns would easily be able to spot the difference.
The third objection was that there would be considerable bureaucracy in managing the system in clubs. I do not know why a disassembly system should entail any more bureaucracy than the system envisaged in the Bill; I think that the contrary is true. Depositing component parts would work in exactly the same way as depositing whole guns.
The argument has already been made, but I will make it again, that a cache—whether it is in a strong room, concrete container or steel box—is surely a greater target for a robber than a box with a few spare parts. If any hon. Member disagrees with that, they should examine the quarry industry and investigate the difficulties that it has had in keeping its explosive stores secure—particularly in remote places, where it has had great difficulty in stopping those with nefarious intent breaking into its stores.

Mr. Marlow: I should tell my hon. Friend that, when I was at Sandhurst—which I presume was a rather more secure place than many gun clubs would be—we were required to keep the working parts of guns in a completely different place from the weapons themselves, to stop robbers from getting at them.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, if the amendment were to be accepted, the weapon would never be whole except in a licensed rifle club.
Among the various bits and pieces that have been sent to me, I received a copy of a cutting from the News of the World. It claimed—perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will tell me whether it is true—that 12 full-bore pistols had been taken from police in Luton, Bedfordshire, but that the matter had been hushed up and was under investigation. That may or may not be true although, as it came from the News of the World, I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is not.
It is quite clear that all the Government's objections to dismantlement simply do not stand up to scrutiny. I believe that dismantling has some benefits.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: One of the great advantages of disassembly is that it would considerably reduce the compensation bill. If, at some later stage, we finish up discovering that the European Court of Human Rights—particularly once the convention is incorporated into our domestic law, perhaps under a Labour Government—requires us to pay


£500 million, which is eight times the cost of Britannia, for this little ill-considered measure, we shall all feel that this is a pretty bad evening's work.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I hate to pick holes in my hon. Friend's argument, but we are talking only about .22s. Disassembly would indeed be cheaper for the taxpayer, because more shooters would be able to continue their sport and more clubs would remain open. Clubs will still require a good measure of security, but not the fortress approach that will be required to store arsenals of fully assembled working guns. He is right, but perhaps not on the figures that he mentioned.
I believe that disassembly would be safer for the public, and I have already mentioned the two alternatives on security. The shooting fraternity would also be able to practise its sport much more easily. Given that the Government have removed the .32 from legal possession, which will exclude us from many international competitions, we shall be very restricted in the competitions that we can enter. We owe it to our shooters—who have done very well in winning gold medals and other awards in all types of shooting—to help them as much as possible.
What really hurts and comes through in all the letters that I have received is that, fundamentally, the Bill expresses distrust in the honest, law-abiding shooter. The amendment expresses further distrust. It seems ridiculous, because we know in our heart of hearts that it was not the gun that was responsible but the man. This extension, this quibble and this argument seem quite unnecessary. I believe that we should accept Lords amendment No. 8, and be grateful for it.

Mr. Salmond: In a parliamentary first earlier, I found myself in favour of a guillotine motion—something I have never experienced in my entire parliamentary career. I am now going to commit another first by saying that the Home Secretary said something rather important towards the end of his speech—something I am sure I have never said in my parliamentary career.
The Home Secretary identified a fallacy that has gained some currency, particularly among the ranks of Conservative Members. It is that Lord Cullen unambiguously recommended the disablement of handguns. Lord Cullen did no such thing. The Home Secretary referred to the recommendation in the Cullen report that multi-shot handguns should be dealt with
preferably by their disablement … or, if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns by individual owners".
The Home Secretary often claimed that Government were going further than Lord Cullen, but—as he accurately said today—they are not.
The Home Secretary is in some difficulty, because there are some aspects of logic that are difficult to defend in his proposals. His central difficulty is that he has made a distinction between weapons over .22 calibre and .22 weapons, despite the fact that many .22 weapons can be multi-shot and just as dangerous under certain circumstances as weapons of a higher calibre.
The intellectual difficulty that the Home Secretary is experiencing is identified by that dubious distinction. It would have been more sensible to bite the bullet and to grasp the logic of Lord Cullen's recommendation. Once the Home Secretary properly decided not to go for the disablement option, because of its weaknesses, the Government should have followed Lord Cullen's recommendation for all multi-shot weapons, and should not have allowed .22 weapons to continue to be used in licensed gun premises.
A recurrent argument in the debate has been the question of licensed premises becoming arsenals and attractive to terrorists or criminals. If that is a genuine concern on the part of some Conservative Members—let us assume that it is—the amendment that should have come from another place is not the one before us this evening. The amendment proposes to remove the exempt categories of weapons and to go for the disablement option.
If the genuine fear was that gun clubs would become arsenals and subject to raids by terrorists and other factions, the amendment that should have been tabled would have proposed the disablement of .22 multi-shot weapons and would not have allowed any weapons to be kept at home. In other words, we should have gone further than the Government's proposal.

Mr. Frank Cook: It may be that I am referring to a different set of documents, but I thought that that was exactly what we were discussing.

Mr. Salmond: The recommendation from the Lords is to remove the categories of banned weapons and to identify the disablement option, which would allow the bulk of the gun to be kept at home and the firing mechanism to be stored in a gun club.

Mr. Cook: That is for .22 weapons.

Mr. Salmond: I am trying to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, for .22 weapons, if the major part of the gun was in a gun club and the firing mechanism was elsewhere, it could be considered a strengthening of the legislation. I am subject to correction by the Home Secretary, but the amendment proposes to allow the bulk of the gun to be retained at home, while the firing mechanism or other part is retained in a gun club. I am suggesting that if the amendment were the other way round—so that the bulk of the gun would be retained in the gun club while the mechanism was elsewhere—a valid argument could be made that that would strengthen rather than weaken the legislation.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Such an amendment was tabled on Report.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to discuss the amendment before us, as opposed to previous amendments tabled on Report. My proposition, as he well knows, is to ban all .22 weapons and all other calibres of handgun. I have identified that as the right way forward, and it is a proposition that I continue to defend. I was trying first to examine the Home Secretary's position, and then the position of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He has


come to my aid and agreed with me during many fishing debates, but unfortunately we are bound to disagree on this subject.
If there was a genuine concern not to weaken the legislation and not to emerge with further loopholes, the amendment before us would have been the other way round. It is possible to argue that such an amendment would have strengthened the legislation, but—as the Home Secretary rightly said—the amendment undoubtedly weakens it. Therefore, I will be happy to commit another parliamentary first by joining the Home Secretary in the Lobby this evening.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It seems to me that the amendment imparts a little clarity into the most muddled piece of legislation that this House has had to consider for many a long year. I would like to make some brief points.
No one for a moment doubts the sincerity of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) but, quite honestly, his was a very confused speech. When I intervened to ask him whether he would support the return of the death penalty if public opinion demanded it, he skated around the subject. The fact is that the House sometimes has to stand out against public opinion. It is the job of the House to legislate fairly and decently, and in the interests of our constituents. We can then answer to them at the subsequent general election. To try to follow public opinion—determining what it is by all sorts of inexact science—is not the function of a mature Parliament or of responsible parliamentarians.
Who are we seeking to catch with this legislation? We are seeking to make it more difficult for criminals—or to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, "maniacs and lunatics"—to run amok with weapons. It has been said in this and other debates here and in another place that criminals will find ways of purchasing weapons, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) referred to east end pubs and elsewhere. They will continue to commit diabolical crimes, and it is important that we have a police system that can seek to anticipate those criminal actions, and a criminal justice system that can seek to deal with those who perpetrate crimes when they have been caught. No one could dissent from either of these propositions.
What of the maniac or the lunatic? There is no legislation that we or any other assembly can devise that can deal adequately with the maniac. What if a maniac runs amok with a shotgun, rather than a handgun? An interesting article by Matthew Parris in The Times the other day suggested that, within a few years, the hidden agenda would become all too apparent and we would be banning shotguns. During a previous debate, I intervened on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—I am sorry he is not here now—and asked him what his attitude would have been had the crime been committed with a shotgun. I asked whether he would be looking to ban them. Honestly, immediately and instinctively, he replied that perhaps he would.
The House cannot go down that road, yet we are. In doing so, we are punishing for the sins and crimes of an individual a group of the most law-abiding and responsible people in this country. It is disgraceful that we should even contemplate doing that.
Of course one has to react to a crime as horrible and terrible as that at Dunblane, and of course one has to look at what should be done to make it more and more difficult for the Thomas Hamiltons of this world to possess weapons. However, the blame lies not with the law, but with the careless action of those who did not listen when they were warned that the man was a trifle odd, to put it mildly, and allowed him to have his certificate and his weapons. Our reaction does a grave injustice to many law-abiding people who have been following a legitimate sport, in some cases for many years.
It is too late to go back over the debates that we had before Christmas. We should concentrate on making the Bill a little tidier, a little clearer and a little less unfair. The Lords amendments would do that. We should approve the amendments that impart tidiness and we should endorse those that bring in a little fairness. In so doing, we would redress a balance that we are guilty of getting grossly wrong.

Mr. Frank Cook: If we accepted all the amendments this evening, we would not make good law; we would just make a law less bad than it was. The case for dismantling is plain. I have made it before in the Chamber. I do not want to repeat everything that I have said on the subject. The consequence of not accepting dismantling will be fewer and fewer gun clubs. Clubs will be more widely dispersed and they will have arsenals in them. That must be so if the Bill goes through as it stands.
It is iniquitous that people with an interest in target shooting should be penalised. I have every sympathy with the residents of Dunblane and residents of Hungerford. Nobody has a monopoly on that distress. Sometimes, people talk as though they have—they have not.
The Home Secretary has responsibility throughout the United Kingdom for the efficiency and expertise of the police. I care about target shooters. Theirs is a bona fide, international sport. Our sportsmen and women have brought credit to this country.
What about the men and women on the beat who are entrusted with a firearms responsibility? They have to practise that expertise and hone it to proficiency standard. What time do they get, and where can they go? They cannot practise on official ranges, they cannot use official weapons and they cannot do it in official time. None of that is permitted. Of their own dedication, they acquire weapons, join a club and practise in their own time to maintain their skills.
What is the Home Secretary going to do about that? There will be fewer clubs to go to, and those people will not be able to hold legally the weapons that they are required to be able to use proficiently. Defeating the Lords amendment on dismantling will mean that there will be fewer clubs. The Home Secretary has a direct responsibility. I hope that he is taking it seriously.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I very much regret being at odds with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall vote for the Lords amendment on disassembly because it would implement Lord Cullen's original recommendations. I am rather shocked and dismayed that the Government ignored the original recommendation.
As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has pointed out, no one has a monopoly on sympathy for those who have suffered so appallingly as a result of the actions of Thomas Hamilton. Like everybody else, I was deeply shocked and appalled at what happened. However, I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks it sensible to be at odds with so many of his Back Benchers—his supporters in his party.
I do not appreciate the fact that my party was bounced into the Bill by a few members of the Cabinet. We had no opportunity to consider the Cullen report and our response to its recommendations. I have never voted for the Bill. One reason for that is that the shooting community has been betrayed. While Cullen was conducting his inquiry, members of that community were told not to rock the boat. They demonstrated a great deal of self-restraint. They were told that they would have an opportunity to put their case to the politicians. They did not have that opportunity, because we were all bounced into the Bill. The House of Lords has merely injected some balance into it.
We have heard from hon. Members on both sides that the refusal to follow Cullen's recommendations on disassembly is a response to public opinion. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) referred to the three polls, conducted after the Duke of Edinburgh's comments, that showed that public opinion was not as polarised as has been suggested. People recognise that the shooting community is being discriminated against. I am sorry that the Government have not taken that into consideration. The Government's preferred option will put most gun clubs out of business, because of the massive cost of implementing the security measures.
The Bill already stops many shooters carrying out their legitimate pastimes. The amendment is a moderate attempt to inject some fairness. It would be much safer for unusable parts of a gun to be stored in separate places, rather than arsenals of working guns being held in clubs. That point has been made several times; surely the House should take note of it.
The taxpayer could also be saved considerable sums, because the compensation bills would not be as high. We have not heard many people talking on behalf of the shooters. If the Lords amendment is accepted, more people will be able to continue their sport, because more clubs will be able to remain open.
This morning, I received a letter from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), in response to a letter that I wrote to her in October. I am grateful for her response. She replied to several points that I had raised. She said:
A determined or motivated individual could find it easy to obtain an illicit spare part.
A determined or motivated individual could find it easy to obtain a handgun. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) has said, someone so motivated could go to many pubs in London and buy a handgun.
The Bill ignores that reality. It discriminates against a group of people who enjoy a legitimate pastime. The House of Commons and the Conservative party will rue the day that the Bill was forced through Parliament.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I shall keep my remarks short because of the guillotine. In his opening remarks, the Home Secretary was squirming in his efforts to deal with the points raised by Conservative Members and one or two Labour Members. I heard him recognising the logic of the point advanced by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and he failed to deal with the problem raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). I could not help but reflect that he would not have found himself in that uncomfortable position, had we found time to discuss the Cullen report before the headlong rush into legislation. If even so trained a legal mind as his is unable to deal with those points now, I cannot help but reflect that we would have done far better to have considered the practical and technical arguments and even tested public opinion on the proposal advanced by Lord Cullen before we embarked on this ill-considered legislation.

Mr. John Carlisle: If that was the case, why did the Liberal Democrat party jump the gun, if I may use that phrase, by saying that it would ban all handguns, before the Cullen report was even published?

Mr. Harvey: In all truth, uniquely among the parties in this case, our party took the time to read the Cullen report before arriving at any conclusions. We then advanced on the basis of a free vote. Many such as myself who fundamentally disagree with the principle of the legislation because of the way that it is framed, none the less voted for the option of an all-out ban, because we realised that that was more logical than the muddle that forms the basis of the legislation.
The amendment under consideration would be a better option than either and I shall continue to consider disassembly, which has been proven in our debate to be the best option available. The so-called experts who initially said that it was impractical have largely been answered. Some of the more recent arguments against the disassembly option also seem largely to have been dealt with.
We are being asked to consider the suggestion that law-abiding, respectable citizens, who are members of gun clubs, will resort to the most bizarre steps imaginable to conceal various pieces of equipment, pretend that they are other things, substitute one for another and do all sorts of other things. Why on earth would anyone bother to go to the trouble of doing all those things when, as has been said time and again, it would be far easier simply to go to the continent and get hold of a gun, or to go to any of the innumerable establishments in the underworld to procure one? It seems far more likely that someone who was determined to have a weapon would resort to one of those easier and less complex ways, to get one.
It has been suggested that the arrangement for disassembly would be bureaucratic and hard to administer. I do not see why it would be any more so than the proposed legislation. The bureaucracy, such as it is, would provide useful safeguards, which would enable the police to check properly and would mean that we knew who had got what, where and for what purpose.
The practical arguments against disassembly simply do not hold water. Disassembled pistols would be far safer than the arsenals of complete guns that we are proposing. If clubs are a target, arsenals would be a much more attractive target than somewhere that had only half the item stored in it. The disassembly option would allow thousands of clubs to continue to operate. would save a sport for thousands of people—both able-bodied people and the many disabled people who find that this is a sport in which they are uniquely able to participate—and would save the taxpayer a huge amount of money. Also, it would meet the central purpose of the Bill, which is to separate the owner of a gun from that gun, except within licensed premises, and to do everything possible to avoid another terrible tragedy along the lines of Dunblane. As drafted, the Bill would practically eliminate the sporting use of pistols and would provide only a negligible increase in public safety.

Mr. John Carlisle: I apologise to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) if I embarrassed him in some way about the stance that he honourably took against that taken by his colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party. Let it be put on the record that they talked about banning all handguns before the Cullen report was published. As far as embarrassment is concerned, I am with him, on the basis that I have been acutely embarrassed by this legislation and will continue to be so.

Mr. Howard: Characteristically, my hon. Friend is being far too generous to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), who did not disagree with his party, but voted with his colleagues for a total ban. I understand the views of those of my hon. Friends and of the few Opposition Members who objected to a total ban and are in favour of the amendment, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is no case whatever for the view taken by the hon. Member for North Devon, who voted for a total ban and now seeks to represent all sides of the argument by apparently voting for disassembly?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. However, at a time when we who disagreed with both Front-Bench spokesmen are looking for every friend we can get, a voice in the wilderness that may translate into a vote in the Lobby in a few moments is to be welcomed.

Sir Anthony Grant: I think that my hon. Friend and, probably, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, will want to be completely fair to the Liberal Democrat party. It should be pointed out that the one member of that party who knows something about this subject—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—actually voted against.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has put the matter succinctly—may the Liberal Democrats be keepers of their own conscience.
This has been an extraordinary debate, particularly the performances from the Front Bench. I am interested in the new thesis of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that temptation must now be a basis for law. I have often been tempted in my short political career in this place—sadly, about to end—to think that I might sit where he does. Obviously, I know that I have his

protection and that of the other law makers in this place, should such a wayward thought ever cross my mind. Perhaps that gives him and the Opposition Front-Bench team an idea of the fact that they are totally wrong and unfair to reject the reasonable Lords amendment. After all, it is only a tiny amendment compared to that which many of us would have wished their Lordships to put forward—disassembly of all handguns, including .33s, which would have put a coach and horses through the Bill and made it totally unworkable, in my right hon. and learned Friend's mind.
The Lords amendment is a modest measure, but it would give enormous comfort to the few supporters we have left who still trust us on this legislation, on the basis that we would at least be giving them some form of succour, in what has been a thoroughly bad, ill-thought-out and ill-prepared Bill.
Other colleagues have mentioned cost. In my constituency, the leading gun club is in the heart of the town. That is not exactly the leafy suburbs of my constituency—I do not think that there are any trees to have leaves on in that part. It is mainly a council area, where people are struggling to make ends meet. That club will undoubtedly have to close if we do not accept the Lords amendments. It seems logical that, by disassembling the guns in the way proposed, we shall not only put a stop to the arsenal of weapons that exists now, which is necessary, but avoid the enormous costs of the fortresses that will have to be built.
As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, gun clubs will necessarily be fewer and fewer. The British Shooting Sports Council has estimated that nearly 67 per cent. of clubs will go out of business if this amendment is not accepted. It must weigh on the conscience of all hon. Members that we are taking from those honest and reasonable constituents, many of whom are our supporters but who are sadly disillusioned by the legislation, that chance to keep their sport.
To conclude, as I know that time is short, the situation that we now face with disassembly, particularly with the Commonwealth games, is ludicrous. Because of the legislation, competitors from abroad at the Manchester games will be able to bring in a calibre of gun that is far greater than that which we have discussed this evening and which will be illegal, except if special exemption is made. Our own sportsmen and sportswomen, who have enormous prowess in the sport, will not be able to practise with those guns in this country and will have to go abroad; that is totally ludicrous.
Even at this stage, a special exception could be made for the sportsmen and sportswomen who want to represent their country, as they have done in the past with such dignity and success, and who will now have to jump on an aeroplane or a ship and go abroad to practise so that they can compete in the Commonwealth games. What a farce—and what a farce, frankly, the whole Bill has become.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must listen to the voices from the Government Benches—and the brave voices from the Opposition—if we are not to face an electoral disaster. I warn him that that could easily happen in many marginal seats if we passed the legislation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No, I must conclude because others wish to speak.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend even at this late stage to consider accepting the amendment.

6 pm

Mr. Barnes: It is quite unbelievable that in supporting the amendment I find myself aligned with the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), the Duke of Edinburgh, hereditary peers and the shooting community. Those are not people whom I would regard as my natural political allies, but I believe that the logic of dismantling is overwhelming.
I should have preferred the amendment to be the other way round, so that the slide assembly or cylinder were held at home, but it is the best proposal that we have, and it is in line with the general principle that dismantling has always been a sensible provision. That idea was put to us by Cullen, and we should have had a chance to discuss it in the House and to sort out our ideas before legislation was rushed through.
The Dunblane parents wrote to me, as they probably did to every Member of Parliament. I met them in what was probably my most harrowing experience as a Member of Parliament, having to defend a position that they opposed, when all my sympathy went with them rather than with the individuals whom I mentioned earlier as being associated with me on the matter. In the end, I replied to the letter in considerable detail, explaining my position.
I believe that dismantling is the best possible solution to the problem that confronts us, given that the Government have insisted on their position about .22 calibre weapons. The logic operated throughout, and is back with us in the amendment. I am pleased that the gun lobby is on board in arguing for dismantling, because I thought that once it had lost the argument on general principle, it might fall back to the position of .22s being placed in gun clubs. There are, however, other arguments, such as that concerning the difficulty of establishing sufficiently secure gun clubs, which affect the interests of the gun lobby.
I am disappointed with the position being taken by Labour Front Benchers, because they have stood on their head to some extent on the matter of gun clubs. They now tell us that gun clubs are more or less safe, whereas on Second Reading their argument for the total ban on handguns was based on the premise that the Government's proposal of placing .22s in gun clubs was not acceptable and that all sorts of dangers were associated with it. They have decided to agree with the Government, and have not followed through the logic of their original position.
The argument is solidly established, even for people such as myself, who have never been associated in any way with gun club culture or activity, but have all along considered dismantling to be the answer to an extremely difficult problem. We have a chance to do something about that tonight.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I support the amendment. I believe that we are dealing with an entirely legitimate

sport, pursued by responsible individuals, which teaches discipline and self-control. Through the legislation, the House is removing or curtailing an activity that has previously been lawful, and removing private property that up to now has been lawfully held. The House should be extremely cautious about doing that.
I have visited gun clubs in my constituency and I am convinced that the disassembly option is safe and feasible and would save a considerable quantity of public money. After taking a considerable amount of evidence about disassembly, Lord Cullen concluded:
I am satisfied that the dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers would in general be practicable.
In response, the Government produced only one objection. They said:
While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of guns, it is not a practical proposition for others.
I agree with that. The measure would not apply for the 5 or 10 per cent. of pistols for which it is not practicable, but for the other 95 per cent. it is a practicable option, as found by Cullen and as admitted, by implication, in the Government's initial response.
In an intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, I pointed out that the argument that a pistol owner could obtain illegally another slide assembly, and therefore a complete pistol, was pretty thin: someone driven to do that would find it much easier to obtain an entire pistol, most likely from the very large reservoir of entirely illegally held weapons, which are unaffected by the legislation. He said, very fairly, that he saw the force in that argument, so I would ask him to follow that through and accept the amendment.
Surely the House stands up for minorities. Does not liberty, which we defend in the House, entail supporting at times unpopular causes? I think that the legislation is in parts mistaken and that we have an opportunity this evening to go one small step towards meeting the legitimate aspirations of the majority of legitimate sportsmen who use guns, by accepting the disassembly option.

Mr. Howard: I agree strongly with my right hon. and hon. Friends who have said that those who currently engage in the activity of shooting are overwhelmingly law-abiding, decent people. I entirely understand the concerns that have been expressed at the extent to which they are likely to be affected by the legislation.
I entirely reject the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that a majority of those who voted for the amendment in another place, or my hon. Friends, were merely seeking to defend vested interests. That is very far from the case, and the allegation was unworthy.
I also reject the hon. Gentleman's argument that we should be motivated in placing this or any other legislation on the statute book primarily by a consideration of where the balance of popular opinion lies. That is certainly a factor to be taken into account, but it should not be the only factor. I thought that the intervention on him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) had much force. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gave my hon. Friend a satisfactory response.

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps I can give a more satisfactory response now. That was not what I was saying. I argued that the House must do what is right and practical, but that in this instance, public opinion demands that we take action quickly, which is why it is important that we proceed with the Bill now.

Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have to do what is right and practical. Therefore, the argument turns on the difference between the point of view expressed in questions put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—on which he expanded in his speech—and by other hon. Members, and my response to them. My right hon. Friend mentioned my response to this point in the debate, I think, on Second Reading, but he did not read on. Had he done so, he would have found that, at that early stage, I dealt with the essential argument that if disassembly were accepted, there would be no satisfactory way of controlling the illicit use of parts of guns to make a whole gun. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) suggested that the Government had introduced that argument at a later stage. That is not the case; it was part of our argument from the very beginning.
The point is perhaps most explicitly and succinctly expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales, which stated that
disassembly is incapable of being policed.
Coming from that source, that opinion is not lightly to be set aside. I fully accept that the balance of the argument on the amendments is a difficult judgment. I fully accept that it is possible for others to reach a legitimate judgment on the question that differs from that of the Government, which I commend to the House. However, it would be difficult for someone with the ultimate responsibility for recommending to the House the decision that it should take to put aside the careful judgment of ACPO, reached in such unequivocal terms. I ask hon. Members to take careful note of that judgment and give it proper and full weight when they decide how to vote.

Mr. Marlow: What do the chief constables mean when they say that disassembly cannot be policed? Does it mean that some people might not abide by the law and would therefore break it? If they broke the law on disassembly, they could break it by holding guns that they were not entitled to have. Where does that take us?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that my hon. Friend was present for the whole debate. That point was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells and others. As I sought to explain in answer to their interventions, my belief, which is shared by ACPO, is that there are those who will be tempted by the ease of fitting spare parts into another part of a gun who would not necessarily buy illegal guns. That is the judgment on which the amendments turn.

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Howard: I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells may take a different view on where the balance of judgment lies. I have put before the House the basis on which I have reached mine.
Before I conclude, I want to reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who asked a specific question about police training, which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place. She said quite unequivocally that both the Ministry of Defence and ACPO agreed with the Government's assessment that training for the requisite standards of proficiency would continue to be provided for police and the personnel of the armed services when they are on duty. That is what happens.

Mr. Cook: It is insufficient.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it is insufficient, nor did ACPO.
I have attempted to identify the judgment which lies at the heart of the decision that the House must take on the amendment. I invite lion. Members to pay particular attention to the judgment of ACPO, that disassembly is incapable of being policed. I invite hon. Members to disagree with the two amendments that were passed in another place.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 394, Noes 115.

Division No. 78]
[6.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Brazier, Julian


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bright, Sir Graham


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)


Alton, David
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Amess, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burns, Simon


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Peter


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Callaghan, Jim


Ashby, David
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joseph
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Austin-Walker, John
Canavan, Dennis


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Battle, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony



Bennett, Andrew F
Clelland, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Berry, Roger
Coe, Sebastian


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blunkett, David
Cohen, Harry


Boateng, Paul
Congdon, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Connarty, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bowis, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradley, Keith
Couchman, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Cousins, Jim






Cox, Tom
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Cran, James
Hardy, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hawkins, Nick


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Heald, Oliver


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)
Henderson, Doug



Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heppell, John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Darling, Alistair
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Davidson, Ian
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Hinchliffe, David


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)
Home Robertson, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Horam, John


Day, Stephen
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dixon, Rt Hon Don
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)



Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dowd, Jim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Duncan, Alan
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Dunn, Bob
Hutton, John


Durant, Sir Anthony
Illsley, Eric


Dykes, Hugh
Ingram, Adam


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Eastham, Ken
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Jamieson, David


Elletson, Harold
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Etherington, Bill
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Evennett, David
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Faber, David
Keen, Alan


Fabricant, Michael
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Faulds, Andrew
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Khabra, Piara S


Fisher, Mark
Kilfoyle, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Kirkhope, Timothy


Forman, Nigel
Knapman, Roger


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kynoch, George


Foulkes, George
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Legg, Barry


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lewis, Terry


Fraser, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lidington, David


French, Douglas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Litherland, Robert


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Garnier, Edward
Llwyd, Elfyn


George, Bruce
Lord, Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Loyden, Eddie


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Luff, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lynne, Ms Liz


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
McAllion, John


Gordon, Ms Mildred
McAvoy, Thomas


Graham, Thomas
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
MacKay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gunnell, John
McLeish, Henry


Hague, Rt Hon William
Maclennan, Robert


Hain, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
McMaster, Gordon





McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


McNamara, Kevin
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


MacShane, Denis
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Madden, Max
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Rowe, Andrew


Madel, Sir David
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sackville, Tom


Malone, Gerald
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Mandelson, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sheerman, Barry


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Mates, Michael
Simpson, Alan


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Maxton, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Merchant, Piers
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Speed, Sir Keith


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Milburn, Alan
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Spink, Dr Robert


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spring, Richard


Morgan, Rhodri
Sproat, Iain


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stephen, Michael


Murphy, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Strang, Dr Gavin


Nelson, Anthony
Straw, Jack


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


O'Hara, Edward
Temple-Morris, Peter


Olner, Bill
Thomason, Roy


O'Neill, Martin
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Timms, Stephen


Paice, James
Tipping, Paddy


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Touhig, Don


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pearson, Ian
Tredinnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon


Pope, Greg
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Walden, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wallace, James


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Waterson, Nigel


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, John


Reid, Dr John
Wells, Bowen


Rendel, David
Welsh, Andrew


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wicks, Malcolm


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wilkinson, John






Willetts, David
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wray, Jimmy



Wright, Dr Tony


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Winnick, David



Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Matthew Carrington.




NOES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Johnston, Sir Russell


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Key, Robert


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Barnes, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Batiste, Spencer
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Beggs, Roy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Bendall, Vivian
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Body, Sir Richard
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Mans, Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Marek, Dr John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Marland, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Budgen, Nicholas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Butcher, John
Moate, Sir Roger


Cann, Jamie
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Cash, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Churchill, Mr
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Pawsey, James


Dalyell, Tam
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Duncan Smith, Iain
Porter, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Rathbone, Tim


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richards, Rod


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Riddick, Graham


Fry, Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gale, Roger
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gallie, Phil
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gapes, Mike
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shersby, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Sims, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Skinner, Dennis


Gorst, Sir John
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sumberg, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sweeney, Walter


Grylls, Sir Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hannam, Sir John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Harris, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Harvey, Nick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Viggers, Peter


Hayes, Jerry
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Waller, Gary


Hicks, Sir Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hoey, Kate
Whittingdale, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Wilshire, David


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)



Jessel, Toby
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnson Smith,
Mr. Tony Marlow and


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Den Dover.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.

It being after fifteen minutes past Six o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Question to be decided at that hour, pursuant to the Order this day.

Lords amendment No. 12 disagreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 25, after clause 11, to insert the following new clause—Compensation scheme for firearms dealers—

".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were wholly or mainly carrying on business as registered firearms dealers under the 1968 Act, in respect of any loss of business directly caused by the prohibition contained in section 1.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide for payments to be equivalent to one year of after—tax profits of the business, based on the average after—tax profits from the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years, or for the total period of trading if less than three years, before the passing of this Act as calculated by a qualified person.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—
business" means only the business or that part, of the business directly affected by the prohibition contained in section 1; and
qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.

(4) A scheme under subsection (1) above may—

(a) restrict eligibility for receipt of payments to claims made within a period specified in the scheme;
(b) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims."

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 26, Lords amendments Nos. 27 and 93 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, and Government amendment (a).
I have to inform the House that all four of these Lords amendments involve questions of privilege.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will it be possible to have separate votes on Lords amendment Nos. 25 and 27?

Madam Deputy Speaker: If it is so desired, yes.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the last vote, the majority of Conservative Members of Parliament who are not on the payroll either opposed the measure or did not support it. The fact is that only a minority of the Conservative party supported the Government. That fact should be known because the matter now returns to another place, whose Members might like to know that the Conservative party supports what they did last time and would seek to support them if they continue.

Madam Deputy Speaker: One must not use points of order to make points of policy or opinion.

Mr. Howard: The Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value to people who


hold firearms certificates for the higher-calibre handguns that the Bill will prohibit. These values would be those that applied immediately prior to my announcement in the House on 16 October last year.
I should like to remind the House of the arrangements that are planned. To qualify for compensation an owner will have to have held his firearm on a firearms certificate; or have held it by virtue of being a registered firearms dealer; or have been contracted to acquire his or her gun on 16 October; and will have to surrender it to the police. Owners will be able to choose between three compensation options.
First, there will be a basic flat-rate figure that an owner may claim for each high-calibre handgun he surrenders, whatever its make, age or condition. Secondly, there will be a list of market values—as applied immediately before 16 October 1996—for the most commonly held types of handgun. Those figures may be higher than the basic compensation figure and owners who hand in a gun of one of these types will be able to claim that value.
Thirdly, there will be owners whose guns do not fit within these arrangements or who want to obtain their own valuation. We intend that those who wish to will be able to submit valuations that they themselves have obtained. In cases of dispute there will be recourse to a second independent valuation of the gun.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who exactly will do all that valuation? Item 12 of the letter that was circulated today by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), states:
Any discrepancies in the claim—including any relating to the condition of items claimed for under Option C—will either need to be resolved before the claim is accepted by the police.
For some reason, that paragraph does not make complete sense, but the issue with which it deals is important. Can the Home Secretary explain the background to that provision?

Mr. Howard: Any arguments about the condition of the gun could be dealt with at the time the gun is surrendered to the police, but questions of valuation will not, of course, be decided by the police. They will be decided in the way that is properly set out in the letter and the accompanying document.
Owners will also be entitled to compensation on a similar market-value basis for ammunition, including expanding ammunition which the Bill would prevent them from owning and for accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which has no use other than in connection with prohibited higher-calibre handguns.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Within that list of accessories will there be included a machine for reloading ammunition, which a small business might have so that it could sell reloaded ammunition to others? Does that fall within my right hon. and learned Friend's category?

Mr. Howard: It is highly likely to do so. I answer in that rather provisional way because the details are not yet fixed. We intend to discuss with the British Shooting Sports Council the question of precisely what these

accessories will be and what their values will be. Examples that we have in mind include reloading equipment for cartridges, specialised holsters and spare parts.
There will also be ex gratia payments—separate from the compensation scheme—for shooters who own .22 rim-fire and other small-calibre handguns, which will not become prohibited by the Bill but which the Bill will require to be kept in licensed pistol clubs. Owners who cannot find a club in which to keep their pistol or who choose not to join a club will be able to apply for an ex gratia payment for their gun; but this will, as I said, be separate from the statutory compensation scheme.
Taking account of the concerns raised earlier in the passage of the Bill about the nature of the compensation scheme, we have decided that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 26 will enable parliamentary oversight of the scheme. I intend to lay the scheme in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made effective until approved by a resolution of this House and by a resolution in another place.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Home Secretary was the owner of, for example, a Ruger Blackhawk 6in barrel, which I am told is quite a valuable gun, would he be content to accept 175 quid as compensation? Knowing him as I do, I bet he would not.

Mr. Howard: I am sorry to say that I can offer no opinion on that question, as I do not own any such gun. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, if any person who does own such a gun is not content with the amount identified in the list attached to the document, it would be open to him to come along with his own valuation and establish that the weapon is worth more than £175. If he makes his case and the valuation is a proper one, he would be compensated on that basis.
The provision that the scheme should be approved by the House would not alter the principles of the compensation arrangements that I have just set out. Both in this House and in another place very full consideration has been given to this issue and we have explained why the Government have decided that compensation should be paid for weapons, ammunition and other ancillary equipment. The amendment means that the details of the scheme can be fully considered by Parliament before it comes into effect.
I would now like to say a few words about amendment No. 25, which concerns compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that the valuation is to be set at the date on which he made his announcement to the House and not before the tragedy at Dunblane. He must be aware that, terrible though that event was, it is the purchase blight placed on the value of firearms by the legislation that has affected what he now deems to be the market value. That will undoubtedly be an issue disputed in any appeal.

Mr. Howard: Indeed, it is because the purchase blight consequent on the legislation is important that I have said that the valuation should be as at the day before any


announcement was made about the nature of the legislation. That is precisely the point and it is a precise response to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Colvin: It seems to me that purchase blight has already hit the list of valuations that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State handed us all at the beginning of the debate. The Home Secretary may not be the owner of a heavy-calibre pistol but indirectly, through the Palace of Westminster shooting club, hon. Members are the owners of two .38 calibre Smith and Wesson 14 6in barrel revolvers. They are listed in the document as being worth £225 each, but Target Gun magazine—which is currently regarded as one of the most reliable indicators of market value—puts the value of the pistols at £386. It seems that blight has hit the Home Office list, but not the market generally.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point, and I defer to him with his considerable expertise and knowledge of these issues. I would simply emphasise that the document that we have circulated, including the list of values to which my hon. Friend referred, has been circulated for consultation, so we shall be very interested to listen to arguments, such as that made by my hon. Friend, before we finalise even that list. Then, notwithstanding the definitive list, it will be possible for any individual shooter to say, "My weapon is worth more than the list says; would you please compensate me on that basis?" That would be a perfectly reasonable way to proceed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is fine as far as it goes, but what proof of value will my right hon. and learned Friend require? Will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that a receipt or normal valuation by a qualified valuer, saying that the gun in question is worth £386, would be acceptable as proof?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows that valuation is not a very precise art. If someone wanted to argue that his gun was worth more than the value identified in the list when the list was in its definitive form, we would expect him to produce evidence from an expert in these matters, who would say, "I know about these things: I know the state of the market and I know about this type of gun, and it is my considered opinion that this particular weapon is worth more than the amount identified in the list." We shall expect that type of approach.

Sir Patrick Cormack: What about the receipt?

Mr. Howard: The receipt would show what was paid for the gun. That would be one of the factors to be taken into account, but obviously, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, only one.
Amendment No. 25 concerns compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill. The Government recognise the strength of feeling in both Houses on that issue, but we cannot accept liability for business losses that might result from the introduction of legislation aimed at improving public safety. As far as

I am aware, that would be unprecedented, and it would limit considerably the scope for future improvements, not just in firearms legislation but across the board.

Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Lady forgive me for a moment?
In other areas, such as transport, medicines, chemicals and pollution, the Government have not paid compensation for business losses that may have been incurred as a result of legislative changes. Where the effect of Government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, it is broadly the case that the taxpayer provides some recompense for those people in relation to the value of the property. That principle has been a recognised part of English law for many years. It underpins our obligations under the European convention on human rights and is the principle that informed our compensation scheme.
The Government will pay compensation to firearms dealers on the same basis as home owners in respect of prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment that they owned or were contracted to acquire on or before 16 October 1996. However, our obligations do not extend to include compensation for business losses and other liabilities.
All businesses operate within a framework of legislation. In the case of the gun industry, the framework is stricter and more specific than that in many other industries. It regulates what types of guns and ammunition can be bought and sold and who may buy and sell them. It is right that there should be a strong framework to control the market in a product which is, potentially, extremely dangerous. Moreover, that framework of regulation has existed since the 1920s and everyone who works in the firearms industry operates within it.

Miss Hoey: Is the Home Secretary aware that, on a recent visit, one of the Australian Ministers—who is a Member of Parliament for Tasmania, where there was an appalling gun incident, as the Home Secretary knows—said that gun legislation received general support from all people in Australia only because compensation was treated seriously and everyone was compensated? If citizens generally, through our Government, are taking away people's rights, surely the least that the Government can do is to ensure that those people are compensated.

Mr. Howard: Grateful though I am to the hon. Lady for patiently waiting to intervene, I do not accept the point that she makes, for the precise reasons that I am giving. As far as I am aware, it would be wholly unprecedented to award such compensation. It would establish an undesirable principle; I do not believe that we should establish that principle.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Sir Donald Thompson: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I have in my constituency one of the most successful, and one of the largest, wholesalers of arms and ammunition. Does he expect me to vote for a Government who are very likely to put that company, which has been in existence for more than 50 years and provides about 30 jobs in my constituency, out of business, and thereby make a large number of people—a majority of them women—unemployed?
Is what my right hon. and learned Friend is proposing real justice? I fully support the view just expressed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). If we are to deny people the right to continue a business that has operated legitimately for more than 50 years, we should fully and properly compensate them.

Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I very much sympathise with his constituent and I hope that the dire consequences that my hon. Friend predicted will not come to pass.

Mr. Winterton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. Friend will consider the wider implications of what he proposes; I have tried to address those wider implications. I have more to say about those wider implications; I do not believe that they can be lightly set aside or ignored.

Sir Patrick Cormack: rose—

Sir Donald Thompson: rose—

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) has been waiting, and I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) more than once.

Sir Donald Thompson: The helpful document on compensation from the Minister of State says:
The Government has also agreed to make payments … This agreement does not extend
to small-calibre pistols held in stock by dealers nor does it extend
to ancillary equipment relating to them as there will continue to be a demand for such equipment.
My right hon. and learned Friend took as examples transport and catering. In those industries, legislation is usually evolutionary, and a catering firm introduces new bits of kit and equipment to keep up with the times and with modern knowledge. However, the proposals before us are draconian. A man in my constituency makes nothing but ammunition for handguns. He employs five people. We shall put him out of business.

Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that in some industries and in some

cases, legislative change of the type that we are discussing is what my hon. Friend has described as "evolutionary", but there are many examples where that is not the case and where the result of a specific piece of legislation is very serious for the firm concerned. Obviously, one does not like that to happen and one greatly sympathises with those whose jobs may be at risk, but it has not been the case that, when we have dealt with such matters in the past, we have provided compensation for that type of consequence.

Mr. Winterton: This is exceptional.

Sir Patrick Cormack: This situation is virtually unprecedented. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to give one example of a sector of legitimate business and industry totally destroyed by legislation without compensation, and without the opportunity for those employed in the industry to do something similar. That opportunity has gone. This is a unique situation, and I doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend can find precedent. Moreover, this would not establish precedent.

Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. One may test matters to some extent by considering the history of the firearms industry. As I said on Report, major changes have been made in the regulatory environment that applies to this industry several times in recent history, and those changes have had a massive impact on the shooting industry and on those who use guns for leisure purposes. In 1920, firearms controls were introduced for the first time. In 1934, fully automatic weapons were prohibited. In 1962, airguns and shotguns were made subject to restriction for the first time. In 1988, semi-automatic and self-loading rifles were prohibited. In 1992, disguised firearms were prohibited.
Many other minor changes have affected the operations of gun dealers and gun clubs apart from the major changes that I have just identified. All those changes were introduced to improve public safety, and some will undoubtedly have affected some businesses more than others; but none was made the subject of compensation for business. No one who works in the firearms industry can be unaware of the significance of regulatory controls on that industry.

Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend really trying to tell the House that if at some future date a Government introduced a Bill to prohibit drink on the ground that it was bad for people's health, every brewery, off-licence and pub would have to shut? All those people would go bankrupt; would the Government say, "Because this is for the benefit of health, there will be no compensation"? Surely my right hon. and learned Friend cannot envisage such circumstances.

Mr. Howard: I take some comfort from the fact that, were any Government to introduce such an outlandish measure, my hon. Friend and I would be in the same Lobby opposing it resolutely—but I have every confidence that no such proposal would ever reach the statute book.

Mr. Batiste: My right hon. and learned Friend has drawn a distinction between loss of business and loss of property. He is clearly not talking about compensation for


a business's loss of profits, but what about plant and equipment, which can often be quite valuable and which has no other use?

Mr. Howard: I do not think so, for reasons that I have already given.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is not a legitimate firearms dealer entitled to say, "I understand that an appalling tragedy took place and that a careful inquiry was conducted under a distinguished judge, having been set up by the Government, but I did not and could not anticipate that the Government would decide—when Parliament was not sitting—to go against the recommendations of that inquiry, and that is why we are experiencing difficulties now"?

Mr. Howard: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is not easy to resolve the question whether the Government have gone further than Lord Cullen's recommendations. I pointed that out when we were discussing the last group of amendments. We certainly went further than Lord Cullen recommended in that he recommended that people should be allowed to keep single-shot pistols at home. He put forward that suggestion for consideration: he did not really regard it as a recommendation. We have said that no single-shot pistol should be kept at home—that no pistols of any kind should be kept at home.
Lord Cullen expressed a preference for disassembly of multi-shot pistols—we have just dealt with that—but said that if, for one reason or another, disassembly was not regarded as a viable solution, all private ownership of handguns should end, and that only handguns kept in and owned by clubs should be available for shooting purposes. I do not think that it can be argued that we have gone further than Lord Cullen in that respect, and I do not think that the question is as easy to resolve as is sometimes made out.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I think that the House understands my right hon. and learned Friend's reluctance to establish a precedent by compensating people who have undoubtedly lost out as a result of the change in the law, but does this not send the country a terrible message? Are not law-abiding people being told, "You are entitled to run your businesses, but if we, Parliament, change the law at the drop of a hat, you will not be compensated, although you have been bona fide all your lives and your businesses are bona fide"? At the same time, as all hon. Members know, there are thousands of illegally held firearms that are not affected by the legislation, and to which the question of compensation simply does not apply. That, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise, is very rough justice.

Mr. Howard: With great respect, I do not see how questions of compensation could apply to illegal firearms. We have a problem with such firearms, as I constantly acknowledge, and the police are doing their best to deal with it; but I do not think that the fact that we have not yet been able to eliminate illegal firearms relieves us of the responsibility to deal with the problem that arises when dreadful acts such as the one committed at

Dunblane are committed with legally held firearms. That takes us back to debates in which we have engaged more than once during the Bill's passage.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: I will, but then I must deal with Lords amendment No. 27.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify a question relating to property? It applies both to the businesses that we have just been discussing and to the clubs with which my right hon. and learned Friend is about to deal.
We are not discussing big business. Dealers are small businesses, and we as a party are supposed to help small businesses. Clubs usually operate on very thin ice financially: they are generally mortgaged, and the ownership of the property—in the case of both clubs and businesses—is very tenuous. Destroying the business of dealers and the membership of clubs will put the ownership of property in jeopardy.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what Lady Blatch said in the debate on these amendments in the other place? She said:
We"—
the Government, that is—
accept that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, then it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. This principle has been a part of English law for many years. It also arises from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and is the principle which informs our compensation scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 4 February 1997; Vol. 577, c. 1592.]
Will that apply to both clubs and dealers in this instance?

Mr. Howard: It will apply—I used similar words a few moments ago—but I do not think that it will apply in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Colvin: I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend would say that.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right in that respect. I think that he is well aware of the distinction that lies at the heart of my answer.

Sir Peter Emery: I have listened to my right hon. and learned Friend with great interest, but I cannot quite follow the logic of the desire of the police and of the Home Office to get rid of illegal weapons. Surely, if compensation is to be paid to those who hand in such weapons, we stand a good chance of getting rid of rather a lot of them: it is nonsensical to deny that. Why not do it in that way?

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I am not attracted by my right hon. Friend's suggestion that wrongdoers should be rewarded with compensation. We had a successful amnesty last year, when a good many weapons were handed in, but I have no intention of compensating wrongdoers in the way that my right hon. Friend suggests.
Amendment No. 27 deals with clubs or associations that suffer losses as a result of the Bill. Some existing target shooting clubs that cater predominantly for pistol shooting may not be able to adapt to the new licensed arrangements; others which concentrate on providing rifle target or shotgun shooting, or adapt to these disciplines, will be little affected. Clubs will be eligible for compensation for prohibited handguns and accessories under the terms of the Government's compensation scheme, but we do not intend to compensate them for any other losses. The Government have not been, and cannot be, liable for business that may be lost by companies, clubs or associations when they introduce regulation in the interests of public safety.
The protection of the public is one of the overriding duties of Government. It would be a significant inhibiting factor if, on occasions when the Government are obliged to legislate in the interests of public safety, they were also obliged to pay for business losses that might result from that legislation. As I have said, we intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for lost stock, but in declining to compensate for business loss as well the Government must have regard to problems that that would create for any future legislation on matters of public safety.
Much as we regret the difficulties that many clubs and businesses may face, I believe that this is the right course for the Government to take.

7 pm

Mr. Donald Anderson: I start from the simple proposition that the House should not pass legislation that offends the sense of justice and fair play of the ordinary British citizen. In my judgment, the response of the Home Secretary tonight shrieks of injustice. If the argument were put to ordinary British citizens, they would agree that it is wholly unfair and unjust.
In the Second Reading debate on 12 February I set out the example of a small family-run firm in my constituency—Shooters of Swansea. The family who own the business have no other assets. They have used their private homes as security. They have carried on the business with the support and encouragement of the local authority and always fully in accord with the local police. As day follows night, that pistol shooting business will be ruined and the owners will have no compensation.

Mr. John Carlisle: I notice that the hon. Gentleman said that the club was run with the support of the local authority. Is he aware that many local authorities, mainly Labour-controlled, are actively discouraging gun clubs by making life distinctly uncomfortable for them? Will he persuade his Front-Bench colleagues, perhaps in relation to another Department, that Labour councils should be discouraged from doing that?

Mr. Anderson: I do not know what other local authorities may or may not do. I know that Swansea city council has given full planning and financial encouragement to that family business, and that it will be ruined.
Following legal advice from a leading silk, I set out various principles of law in the Second Reading debate, relying in particular on the case of Lithgow and the

principle of the "fair balance," and the fact that in that case it was expressly said that whether that balance was fair depended in large part on the compensation offered to those who suffered.
In Committee in the House of Lords, it was said by the Earl of Lytton, who moved the relevant amendment, that no answer had been given to the legal points that I raised, based on the advice of a very senior practitioner in that field.
No answer was given then, and no substantial answer has been given today. I shall not detain the House with the arguments that were set out by Lord Lester in the other place. I will merely say that Lord Lester is a man of enormous experience in the field of human rights legislation. He set out the reasons why, in his judgment, there were indeed precedents—for instance, in Australia—of similar common law legislation where in the exceptional conditions of the gun legislation the Australian legislature, recognising that it must respond to the people's sense of fairness, compensated for business losses. A number of other examples were given—in planning law, for example, and in the rendering industry in connection with BSE.
Such examples and precedents could be cited, if the Government were so minded. The Government, however, are concerned not with fairness but with the effect on the Treasury. I understand that those advising the Home Office are fairly confident that if the matter went to the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, the Government would be likely to lose. The problem is, of course, time. If the matter were litigated in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, it would take fully two years, and if it were litigated in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, it would probably take five years, unless and until that convention is incorporated into our domestic law.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: rose—

Mr. Anderson: I must be brief. If the Home Office is simply seeking to buy time, how moral is that? That is the morality of the insurance company that plays for time in the hope that the terminally ill patient will die. It is clear that many businesses will be ruined by the time the matter is litigated and the Home Office probably loses. That is thoroughly unfair and unjust. It will offend the sense of justice on which the House should rest its legislation.

Sir Hector Monro: I am as depressed with our Front Bench tonight as I was in 1988 when we debated the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. In that case, too, the Government rushed into legislation and found it singularly unsatisfactory when it reached the House.
If only we had had a debate on Cullen in the House after the publication of the report and before policy legislation was decided on, we would have removed many of the anomalies facing us today.
In another place 115 amendments were tabled. I appreciate that some of those are meeting points proposed by their Lordships and from this House, but it is clear that additional drafting was required and many changes in the legislation, all of which could have been dealt with more satisfactorily if we had not hurried forward so quickly.
The Front Bench has not addressed the matter of timing. Presumably the Bill will be enacted shortly. What will be the timing of events thereafter? Will the Home Secretary, and his counterparts for Scotland and Wales, order the police to close down all gun and rifle clubs until they meet the security regulations? When will all the pistols have to be handed in? The average police station will hardly welcome thousands of pistols, which will require valuation and many of which will be the subject of argument as to whether they are antiques or heirlooms, whether they are flintlocks or percussion capped, and so on.
That must all be sorted out. Yet no guidance has been given. Nothing causes greater annoyance than uncertainty. The Home Secretary has created a huge amount of uncertainty about the proceedings once the Bill becomes an Act.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have pointed out many times, if mountains of weapons are deposited in police stations all over the country, how will the valuations be carried out? An enormous amount of police time will be spent waiting for the relatively few qualified valuers of firearms to come and look at many individual weapons all over the country. The cost will be substantial.

Mr. Rowe: I have no way yet of assessing whether what I have been told is true, but a respectable constituent of mine alleges that some of the people who were due for compensation after the Hungerford change in the law have still not received the money that was due to them.

Sir Hector Monro: I have seen that in print during the past month or two.
The Home Secretary must tell us today about the position of the gun and rifle clubs and their buildings and ranges. In those ranges, highly qualified people carry out their international shooting practice. We have a tremendous reputation throughout the world for marksmanship. I speak as a past president of the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, and I know how important the ranges are. Are they to be shut down forthwith, until they fulfil the terms of the security regulations? What are the regulations to be? What will be the difference between regulations applying to indoor ranges and those applying to open ranges?
The Home Secretary must deal with all that. He has given us little information about the valuation of weapons. I appreciate that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), has produced a document for us giving approximate prices, but they seem to vary only between £150 and £450. We all know that high-precision weapons will be considerably more valuable than that. It is relatively easy to value a shotgun, but it is far more complicated for precision weapons of the quality that we are talking about, which are used for international-standard shooting in this country. Who will carry out the valuations? Will they be carried out by the police? Will they be carried out sympathetically and helpfully? Will everybody be given time to discuss whether their weapon is a military heirloom, an antique or a museum piece? None of that is clear.
People want to know what will happen to their valuable possessions. It is bad enough having them confiscated, but it is even worse if one has kept a much-loved weapon

very secure for many years only to have it whipped away at the drop of a hat. We pointed out time and again that we are not doing anything to help make people in this country safer. Of course I accept the tragedy of Dunblane and understand the horrors that those people had to face, but what we are doing is not the answer. In Australia, a high-powered, multi-shot weapon was used, but such weapons are illegal here anyhow. In New Zealand, a shotgun was used. Shotguns are legal here, but we do not deal with that in the Bill. That shows that we are not being consistent, and we cannot say that what we are doing tonight will make this country safer, when the place is awash with illegal weapons.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will explain the procedures for all the people who will have their weapons taken away from them.

Mr. Jack Straw: The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) raised the issue of consistency. It is my belief that the application of consistent principles requires that the House supports the amendments that the Government have proposed today.
We accept, and always have—I do not think that there has ever been any argument across the Chamber about this, save on one occasion in 1988—that where individuals or businesses lose their property or property rights as a result of legislation or decisions made under legislation, for example, as a result of putting a road through a particular route, it is entirely proper that they should be compensated for that loss. That has been a consistent principle. It is also right that where people lose their business as a result of a motorway going through it, they should be compensated for that total loss of business.
Before we come to the issue raised by Lords amendment No. 25, it is worth bearing it in mind that—as many of my hon. Friends and I can testify—the motorway compensation principles do not work out all that equitably in practice. I have constituents whose houses are in the line of the M65 motorway link between the M6 and Whitebirk, to the east of Blackburn. Their houses are not directly on the line but are on the edge of the motorway. The Department of Transport has accepted that their property values have declined by more than 15 per cent.— a trigger point for compensation, but because according to the Department the noise levels have not increased sufficiently, those people cannot claim compensation. There are many similar examples.
I believe that those people should receive compensation, because their property rights have been directly and adversely affected. Their right to compensation must come way above the claim of those who lose a business as a result of legislation.

Mr. Gale: The Home Office has made it abundantly plain that it expects that small gun clubs will close because they will not be able to meet the security regulations, and as a result larger gun clubs will be set up. Those small clubs have members who have invested. They are not businesses. They are members' clubs. The members own them and have invested in the facilities. If the Bill goes through tonight, as planned, there will be no compensation for those people whatever. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?

Mr. Straw: I understand that, and although sympathy may come free, I have every sympathy with people in that predicament. I do not, however, believe that on any careful examination such clubs or businesses are in a different position from businesses that were affected by other legislation. I ask Conservative Members in particular, who have always—very honourably—been concerned about the impact of legislation on the public purse, to think about the consequences of agreeing this precedent today, for precedent it is bound to be.
That is one example, but it is no different from the very adverse effect that legislation had on many businesses that made foam-filled furniture. They did so lawfully and honourably, but, following a change in the law they lost their businesses. The cattle deboning industry was wiped out and received no compensation whatever. Many pharmaceutical companies put drugs on to the market which are lawfully licensed, then some problem arises and they have to take them off. They may lose millions of pounds, as may their shareholders, but they receive no compensation at all.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the European convention on human rights? When voting on the amendment today, will he consider the implications of the convention, particularly if it should be incorporated? More important, the shadow Chancellor said very clearly that he would not do anything in excess of the Government's expenditure plans. It is quite clear that if compensation is to be paid—even in the restricted terms proposed by the Home Secretary—the policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates, that of a total ban on all handguns, is bound to be vastly in excess of what the Government propose to incur. What is his position on that?

Mr. Straw: The compensation that would arise from a complete ban would not be vastly in excess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It would not. It would be 20 per cent. more than the total, because the .22 ban affects only 20 per cent. of the total.
The right hon. Gentleman's first point is very important. We thought very carefully about the European convention on human rights, and I am pleased that it is now being prayed in aid on both sides of the House. I look forward in the next Parliament to widespread support for its incorporation. After all, it was drafted in part by a distinguished former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir.
If one reads carefully the speech of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is unquestionably a great expert on the European convention on human rights, one will see that he picked his words with great care. At no stage did he say that in his opinion the compensation scheme proposed by the Government would run foul of the European convention. The most that he said was that it raised powerful arguments about breaches, and we know that when a lawyer says that something raises powerful arguments he is accepting that the case is not all that strong.
Lord Lester quoted the words of the European Court of Human Rights, which said that it has to be decided whether a fair balance has been struck between the

demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement to protect an individual's fundamental freedom. That is a fair way of putting the issue before the House. Of course there is an issue of an individual's fundamental freedoms. I wish that, in a perfect world, we could compensate everybody and also protect public safety, but we do not live in a perfect world. We have to make choices. I think that the Government's amendment properly reflects a balance.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Perhaps the caution of Lord Lester is as much as one could expect from such a distinguished lawyer, but it is surely not difficult to distinguish cases such as the factory producing foam-filled mattresses, which my hon. Friend cited, from that of a shooting club, because a factory producing foam-filled mattresses can adapt the premises to produce other forms of mattress. By their nature, purpose-built premises such as those in my constituency cannot adapt and would be totally ruined.

Mr. Straw: That wholly depends on the particular case. There will be some clubs or gun dealers who will be able to adapt their trade to take account—[Interruption.] Part of the gun trade would be rendered illegal. Part of it was rendered unlawful in 1988, but a large part of the gun trade—rifles and shotguns are still lawfully licensed—remains wholly lawful, and that may include country sports.
I wish to pick up a point that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made from a sedentary position about other areas in which businesses are affected by legislation. He has represented his constituents with great skill in respect of the textile trade in his constituency, as I have sought to do over the past 18 years in respect of my constituents. The textile industry is a shadow of its former self, not least as a result of Government decisions in accepting, for good reasons or ill, various changes in the multi-fibre arrangement. That arrangement—an international treaty—has led to the closure of whole swathes of the industry; yet not a penny of compensation could be or has been paid to those industries. That is why I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, whatever merit they may give the argument, a huge precedent would be created if we were to accept the amendment.

Mr. John Townend: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will not give way. I am about to finish because others wish to speak.
The effect of the precedent would be such that, when next we felt that there was a need to improve public safety through legislation, whether in respect of furniture, the pharmaceutical industry, the transport industry or firearms control, Governments and the House would always be constrained and often prevented from making decisions in favour of public safety by the enormous cost involved. Yes, as the European Court of Human Rights said, there is a balance to be struck between individuals' fundamental freedoms and the general interest of the community, but in my judgment and that of my hon. Friends, the balance on this issue must be struck in favour of the general interests of the community as a whole.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The argument seems to revolve very much around precedent. I am not a lawyer, but I am


advised that the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 offers not only compensation in general but compensation for anticipated profit. The national compensation code deals with local authorities and Governments acquiring land, property or businesses and is being applied to businesses required to relocate or extinguish as a result of the channel tunnel rail link. Compensation is also addressed by the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 and various pieces of highways legislation.
A Government ordinance to change the foam in a furniture factory, a drug failing or there being tighter control on effluent is completely different from ordinating the cessation of a legitimate business. I am deeply uncomfortable at the moral justice of what we are doing. The Australians very well understand the problem and have managed in their way to give full and fair compensation. If they can do it, we can do it. After all, theirs is a precedent and we can reasonably use it.
Lords amendment No. 27 concerning clubs is about not dealers or businesses but a handful of individuals who have perhaps put some of their own money against a mortgage, lease or whatever. The sums of money are infinitesimal. Indeed, we cannot estimate the global sum, but the level is about £1 million or £2 million. That is not a lot for the Government but a great deal for the unfortunate individuals involved. I am very, very ashamed of my Government for not agreeing with the amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: I just want to ask the Home Secretary one factual question. Home Office officials must have been summoned to the Treasury and asked how much, in the next year and the year after, all the Home Office's proposals would cost. What answer did his officials give?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise to speak because I am incensed by what my Government are doing. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) talked about a sense of justice. My goodness, how the Government with this Bill are legislating against justice in every way. Throughout today's debate, one Member after another, from both sides of the House, has pointed out the injustice, illogicality, nonsense and lunacy of the legislation. Surely nothing brings the House into greater disrepute than what it is doing today: legislating in ignorance against justice in order to achieve a particular objective and not permitting proper and full debate.
I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary earlier what he expects me to do when 30 to 35 per cent. of the business of a family company that I represent—I believe that it was founded by the current chairman's grandfather—is outlawed almost retrospectively by the Government, probably putting its future viability in doubt, preventing it providing jobs for the next generation and putting a number of my constituents out of work as soon as the legislation hits the statute book.
Why does my right hon. and learned Friend not listen to the sense that is being spoken by Members of all parties? Whatever he may say, the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific incident that we all regret. We all sympathise fully with all those who lost children on that occasion. He will come to rue the day that he allowed what I believe is dogma as a result of a particular occasion completely to dominate him—and the sense of justice to which the hon.

Member for Swansea, East referred to go out of the window. My right hon. and learned Friend does this House no service, he does his party no service and he will not have my support in the Lobby.

Mr. Howard: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate.
I of course understand the strong feelings to which the measures have given rise and the indignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but I believe that the Government have come to the right decision on the question of the circumstances in which compensation should be payable. We have to look at these matters with a view to their wider implications, as I sought to explain to my hon. Friend in response to his intervention.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked a number of specific questions to which I shall attempt to reply in the time available. He asked about the transitional arrangements for the handing in of guns. Those are at present under discussion between the Government, the Association of Chief Police Officers and ACPO in Scotland. I very much hope that the matter will be able to be dealt with in precisely the spirit that my right hon. Friend suggested that it should be.
We expect to be able to publish the security criteria for clubs as a consultation document with the British Shooting Sports Council, the firearms consultative committee and others—I hope reasonably soon. We hope to bring forward for parliamentary approval a compensation scheme before Easter. The timing of the surrender and compensation arrangements, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries specifically asked me, will depend on securing that approval.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the total cost of compensation to be provided under the Bill. That is of course dealt with in the explanatory and financial memorandum, which sets out that the total cost of compensation is estimated to be in the region of £150 million.

Mr. Marlow: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a short political question. He knows that the election is due by 1 May, that this Bill is bad legislation and that the Conservative party is opposed to it. Why on earth in God's name is he persisting with it?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows the answer to that question, because I have given it to him on a number of occasions. He has posed similar questions during our debates on the legislation.
The amendments, with which I invite the House to disagree, would extend the arrangements for compensation beyond any of those that we have had before in comparable circumstances. I do not believe that it would be justifiable to ask the taxpayer to pay for such an extension. We have had to strike a difficult balance between our responsibilities to the taxpayer and our desire to compensate those who will suffer as a consequence of the legislation. I believe that we have struck the right balance, and on that basis I invite the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the side amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 140.

Division No. 79]
[7.29 pm


Ayes


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Amess, David
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davidson, Ian


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Donohoe, Brian H


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)



Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Bayley, Hugh
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Berry, Roger
Dykes, Hugh


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blunkett, David
Elletson, Harold


Boateng, Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Fabricant, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright, Sir Graham
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burns, Simon
Foulkes, George


Butler, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Callaghan, Jim
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Canavan, Dennis
French, Douglas


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Carttiss, Michael
Gallie, Phil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Garnier, Edward


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Bruce


Clappison, James
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushclilfe)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair



Gordon, Ms Mildred


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Coe, Sebastian
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Grylls, Sir Michael


Congdon, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Connarty, Michael
Gunnell, John


Conway, Derek
Hague, Rt Hon William


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hain, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Corston, Ms Jean
Harris, David


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Nick


Cox, Tom
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Henderson, Doug





Hendry, Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliot


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Home Robertson, John
Mudie, George


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Horam, John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Olner, Bill


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
O'Neill, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Paice, James


Jamieson, David
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Pickles, Eric


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kilfoyle, Peter



Kirkhope, Timothy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Knapman, Roger
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kynoch, George
Raynsford, Nick


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Reid, Dr John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Legg, Barry
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Robathan, Andrew


Lidington, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Litheriand, Robert
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S).


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Luff, Peter
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sackville, Tom


McAllion, John
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


McAvoy, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


MacKay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McKelvey, William
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Simpson, Alan


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


McMaster, Gordon
Snape, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Madel, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spring, Richard


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sproat, Iain


Mates, Michael
Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian



Maxton, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Meacher, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Meale, Alan
Stephen, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Streeter, Gary


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sykes, John


Miller, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter






Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Thornton, Sir Malcolm



Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Winnick, David


Tredinnick, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Trickett, Jon
Wood, Timothy


Trotter, Neville
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watson, Mike
Mr. Matthew Carrington


Watts, John
and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Richard Ottaway.


NOES


Alton, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hoey, Kate


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hunter, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Batiste, Spencer
Jessel, Toby


Beggs, Roy
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian



Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bennett, Andrew F
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Dr Lynne


Biffen, Rt Hon John
(B'ham Selly Oak)


Body, Sir Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Key, Robert


Butcher, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Butterfill, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cann, Jamie
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lewis, Terry


Cash, William
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Churchill, Mr
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Lord, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Marland, Paul


Dover, Den
Marlow, Tony


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Fry, Sir Peter
Moate, Sir Roger


Gale, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Godman, Dr Norman A
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorst, Sir John
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
O'Hara, Edward


Hannam, Sir John
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hardy, Peter
Pawsey, James


Harvey, Nick
Pearson, Ian


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Porter, David


Hicks, Sir Robert
Rathbone, Tim





Rendel, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Richards, Rod
Thumham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rooney, Terry
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tyler, Paul


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Wallace, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Welsh, Andrew


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whittingdale, John


Spearing, Nigel
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Speed, Sir Keith
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wilshire, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Rupert Allason and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Robert Banks.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be recorded that in the 140 were the overwhelming number of those—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am trying to listen to a point of order. Will Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please?

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be recorded, as it was after the previous debate, that the 140 included the overwhelming number of those who had actually been in the Chamber listening to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.

It being after half-past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions to be decided at that hour, pursuant to the Order this day.

Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to [Special Entry].

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 27, insert the following new Clause—

COMPENSATION FOR CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS

(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide payments in respect of loss incurred by persons who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 305,Noes 145.

Division No. 80]
[7.43 pm


Ayes


Adams, Mrs Irene
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ainger, Nick
Curry, Rt Hon David


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Darling, Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Donohoe, Brian H


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James


Ashby, David



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Dowd, Jim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Elletson, Harold


Barron, Kevin
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Ennis, Jeff


Bayley, Hugh
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Berry, Roger
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Betts, Clive
Evennett, David


Boateng, Paul
Faber, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Faulds, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Flynn, Paul


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bradley, Keith
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bright, Sir Graham
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
French, Douglas


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
George, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Graham, Thomas


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Rt Hon John



Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Cohen, Harry
Hawkins, Nick


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Connarty, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Conway, Derek
Henderson, Doug


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Couchman, James
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Horam, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter





Howard, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard


Ingram, Adam
Paice, James


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jamieson, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Pickles, Eric


Jessel, Toby
Pope, Greg


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)



Jowell, Ms Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Kirkhope, Timothy
Raynsford, Nick


Knapman, Roger
Reid, Dr John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kynoch, George
Robathan, Andrew


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Legg, Barry
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lidington, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Litherland, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Luff, Peter
Salmond, Alex


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacShane, Denis
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, Sir David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)



Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martlew, Eric
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Meale, Alan
Sykes, John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miller, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Mullin, Chris
Trend, Michael


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trickett, Jon


Nelson, Anthony
Turner, Dennis


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George






Waterson, Nigel
Winnick, David


Watson, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Worthington, Tony


Wicks, Malcolm
Wray, Jimmy


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mr. Matthew Carrington.


NOES


Alton, David
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Hunter, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Illsley, Eric


Barnes, Harry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Batiste, Spencer
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy



Bendall, Vivian
Johnston, Sir Russell


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Bennett, Andrew F
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Key, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Butcher, John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Butterfill, John
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lewis, Terry


Cann, Jamie
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Lynne, Ms Liz


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Marland, Paul


Dalyell, Tam
Marlow, Tony


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dover, Den
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Moate, Sir Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fomnan, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Fry, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gallie, Phil
Pearson, Ian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Porter, David


Gill, Christopher
Rathbone, Tim


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rendel, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Richards, Rod


Gorst, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hannam, Sir John
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Harris, David
Shersby, Sir Michael


Harvey, Nick
Sims, Sir Roger


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hicks, Sir Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hoey, Kate
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Speed, Sir Keith


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David





Steinberg, Gerry
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Welsh, Andrew


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Rupert Allason and


Wallace, James
Mr. Robert Banks.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 93 disagreed to.

Amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

EXEMPTIONS FROM SECTION 1 OF THE 1968 ACT FOR OFFICERS ETC. OF LICENSED PISTOL CLUBS

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 10, line 16, at end insert—
("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, use under the supervision of an officer of the club, for a period not exceeding 60 consecutive days, a small—calibre pistol and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.")

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of the said amendment.

Miss Widdecombe: Amendment No. 40 goes too wide in its effects and would pose a risk to the public. It would allow any club licensed by the Home Secretary to offer a facility to any member to shoot there without holding a firearms certificate. It would not be limited to starter shooters, but would apply to any member who did not hold a firearms certificate, and that might include members whose certificates had been revoked by the police.
The police have expressed concern about the length of time—60 days—that the amendment would allow a person to shoot. It should be possible for a novice to make up his mind whether he wishes to pursue the sport of target pistol shooting in a shorter period than 60 days.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend explain why she thinks a new shooter could learn to shoot in 28 days rather than 60? I am sure that she appreciates that a novice will not be able to spend all those 28 days learning to shoot—people have to work or go to school. When their Lordships accepted the amendment, they considered the number of days that it would take a person new to the sport to learn it.

Miss Widdecombe: It is not a question of the starter shooter learning the sport: it is a question of the


starter shooter deciding whether he wishes to pursue the sport and, therefore, whether to apply for a firearms certificate. We do not expect that a starter shooter would become proficient in 28 days, but that is long enough for him to decide whether he likes the sport and wishes to pursue it.

Mr. Frank Cook: Why is it undesirable to extend the number of days from 28 to 60? A person might try shooting once and then have to go away, perhaps even on a parliamentary visit. After 29 days, he would be out of time and have to start all over again. What is so objectionable about the days from the 29th day to the 60th day?

Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that any limit we set will be arbitrary, whether 60, 70, 50, 40, 90, 100 days or whatever. We have to try to find a reasonable limit that will meet the concerns of the police and, at the same time, meet the principle behind the amendment—that there should be a period in which someone can go to a club and decide whether he likes to shoot.

Mr. Cook: But 28 days is not reasonable.

Miss Widdecombe: I have already tried to explain that to the hon. Gentleman. If he does not understand it, I cannot assist him.
We accept the principle behind the amendment, but we cannot accept the detail. Moreover, in the Government's response of 16 October 1996 to Lord Cullen's report, we said that we would make special provisional arrangements for starter shooters. It is unreasonable to expect people interested in the sport to pay the fee and obtain a firearms certificate for a small-calibre pistol before that person has had a chance to try it out. If the sport of target pistol shooting is to continue, licensed pistol clubs should be able to offer facilities to new members who are unsure whether to become full certificate holders.
My noble Friend Lady Blatch gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that a more appropriate amendment would be introduced at this stage in the Bill's passage. Therefore, the amendments that we have tabled allow the Secretary of State, when he issues a licence to a pistol club, to permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols without a firearms certificate at that club for a period of up to 28 days. That does not mean that they will be able to shoot on any 28 separate days but that the last day on which they shoot without a certificate should be no later than 28 days after the first.
Amendments (a) and (b) are technical amendments, which are included in this group for convenience, but they do not relate directly to starter shooters.

8 pm

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a technical point, is my right hon. Friend predicting that there will be a charge for that permission? The chief constable will have to give his permission, and presumably there will be some bureaucracy. Is there any suggestion of a charge being made? What is the initial cost of a firearms certificate, at the end of the 28 days?

Miss Widdecombe: The cost of the firearms certificate at the conclusion of the 28 days will be same as if the

person had applied before the 28-day period. The idea is that, when the Secretary of State issues a licence to a club, he can permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols.
Amendment (c) allows clubs to have pistols that may be used by starter shooters. Amendment (d) is a consequential amendment and amendment (e) allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on the licence. Not all clubs will be granted that facility. The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that a club had in place sufficient supervisory and other controls to ensure that a starter shooter could safely be allowed to practise.
Amendment (f) sets out the main provisions that I have described, and limits the length of time for the starter shooters' trial period to 28 days. Whether the Secretary of State allows the concession to starter shooters at any particular club will be a matter for him to decide. The amendments also allow him, if he considers it right, to make the concession to some licensed clubs but not to others. In deciding whether to allow starter shooters to shoot without a police certificate at a particular licensed club, he will be able to take account of all the circumstances, including the amount of supervision and training that the club might agree to devote to novice shooters and any concerns that the chief officer of police might have about the operation of the concession at the club in question.

Mr. Henderson: When I was about 27 years old, some of my mates persuaded me to try winter hill walking and ice climbing in Scotland. I spent a great amount of money before I even got out of the car—buying gloves, hats, cagoules, ice axes, crampons and other items—and I remember thinking, "I hope that I enjoy this once I start, because, otherwise, I will have wasted a lot of money." Therefore, I have much sympathy with people who might fancy themselves as target shooters, and I realise that significant costs are involved, especially when starting.
Therefore, it is appropriate to have a trial period in which people can decide whether they think that it is a sport for them, whether they like the environment that it offers and whether they are prepared to invest in the necessary equipment. As I had to make a decision before I even stepped on to the mountain, I think that 28 days is a reasonably generous period to allow someone to decide. If they are motivated, it will intensify their efforts to decide whether they like target shooting. It is a reasonable amount of time, and I support the Government's amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 40.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that we do not intend to divide the House on this measure, although, like the rest of the Bill, it involves a matter of principle. Overturning the Lords' suggestion of allowing 60 days and substituting 28 is somewhat disappointing. I have already explained to her the various possible practical difficulties with people who might not use the full the 28-day period, because they might be sick, at work, require a sudden holiday or have a family bereavement. Therefore, 28 days is not a very long period.
The principle behind providing a period for starter shooters and behind their Lordships' amendment was to encourage young shooters—when possible, in a somewhat alien world. Part of the reaction to the Bill and to the Dunblane tragedy has been for some organisations that work with young people to react, like the Government,


in a knee-jerk fashion, which has caused disappointment. Those organisations, such as the scout movement, for example, are now actively considering banning all forms of target practice among their members. I think that some troops have already banned target practice. There have even been some problems with the Duke of Edinburgh award, which, as hon. Members will know, was the subject of early-day motion 402.
It is incumbent on the House to encourage people, particularly youngsters, to take up the sport, as it is still a legitimate sport—or at least what will be left of it after the passage of this awful Bill is still legitimate. It is somewhat incongruous that, in only the past couple of weeks, we have heard proposals from the Prime Minister to encourage combined cadet forces in schools. In only the past few days, we have heard that the military services, because they are short of personnel, are actively trying to recruit 16-year-olds. However, we are not encouraging—as I think that we should be—youngsters who want to take up the sport of shooting.
Provision of a 28-day period is somewhat mean-minded of the Government, and I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that it is difficult to understand why it should not be 60 days instead of 28. In principle, however, we must encourage young people. We have obtained at least something from the Government, but not very much.

Mr. Frank Cook: I can understand that the Minister and the Government cannot accept Lords amendment No. 8. I am also not surprised by their position, because of the attitude that they have expressed on so many other matters. However, I have yet to hear why the amendment is unacceptable. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has adequately explored the confusion over the Government's position.
I am still astonished, however, that a 60-day period is unacceptable. The Minister has told the House that the Secretary of State has within his gift the ability to allow the concession. He can give the concession, he can withhold it—he can do whatever he likes with it. However, a 60-day period is still not acceptable. I know that the period will be arbitrary, but why have the Government chosen 28 days? We are wasting a lot of time on disagreeing with those in another place who made a good argument and were able to pass an amendment. That is exceedingly wilful.
I am also astonished by the attitude adopted by Opposition Front Benchers. Unless circumstances have changed and I am not aware of the change, the Labour party has made a sworn declaration that it will ban all handguns once it gets into power. Nevertheless, we are talking about approving a 28-day period in which people can decide whether they enjoy taking part in a sport that will eventually be denied to them. So many illogical events are occurring. If the events were taking place in a music hall, I would enjoy them, but, as they are occurring in a legislative Chamber, I am appalled. I do not know where we go from here. I appeal sincerely for hon. Members to think again before engaging in an argument that they apparently do not fully understand.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: It would be churlish not to thank the Government for accepting the principle. Had the amendment not been made, it would have been virtually

impossible for anyone wanting to take up shooting to do so without spending a great deal of money—the amount of which we shall no doubt hear later—to get a firearms certificate from scratch and without trying the sport. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), but I have to tell him that .22 shooting is, in my long experience, a great deal more pleasant than ice climbing. I must say that I have never been ice climbing, and the thought of it fills me with horror.
I do not know why we are reducing the total from 60 days to 28 days, but it is symptomatic of the neurotic approach that the Government have to the sport. Anyone with a gun in his hand is, to them, lethal and dangerous, and has to be surrounded by regulations, forms, certificates and security to the point that we are locking ordinary people out of the sport. I am grateful for this opportunity, under pretty stringent conditions, to make that point.
The only thing that worries the shooters is that they take a few weeks to get to know anyone whom they will admit to a club. Normally, clubs have a probationary membership period of at least three months, and sometimes six months, before they will accept anyone, for reasons that we well understand. Limiting this to 28 days will make that personal contact rather difficult. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that point and, if in the future the regulations are altered, one of the weaknesses will be the short time available for regulars to get to know a newcomer.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I seek some guidance from the Minister in relation to amendment (g), which refers to clause 23 and the preceding clause 22. If clause 23 is amended in the way that the Minister seeks, would it prevent a recurrence of a tragic event that happened in my constituency a few days ago? That case illustrates the need for the police to have the strongest powers concerning licensed club members who are under criminal investigation.
I have raised this case with the Secretary of State for Scotland and have urged upon him the need for an early fatal accident inquiry into this case, in which a member of the Greenock gun club was charged in Greenock sheriff court with using lewd and libidinous practices in relation to four young boys. He was released from court and, literally hours later—despite the fact that the police had removed his personal weapons from his home and from the club—was able to enter the club, open a weapons locker and use one of the weapons contained therein to commit suicide. The police acted properly and efficiently in confiscating his weapons.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is short, and it is just conceivable that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is speaking to a different amendment from the one we are discussing. We should like to hear the Minister's response. I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned Lords amendment No. 2, which we are not discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is quite right. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment, and he may be referring to Lords amendment No. 2.

Dr. Godman: I am referring to amendment (g), which deals with clause 23 and is concerned with the power


of entry and inspection of clubs. I appreciate that time is of the essence, but I am seeking to impress upon the Minister that when members of gun clubs are being investigated by the police, not only should they have their weapons removed—as happened in Greenock—but, in terms of the operation and management of these clubs as provided for by clause 23, they should be refused access to the premises. That is why I am seeking an assurance from the Minister along these lines, because this tragedy could have been avoided. It points the way to similar tragedies taking place if, by way of the management of these clubs, such a person is still allowed access.

Miss Widdecombe: In the one minute that remains, I shall try to address the specific points that have been raised. First, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) that the cost of granting a firearms certificate will be £56, and for a pistol club licence £150. There will be no extra charge for clubs which allow starter shooters. I hope that that is helpful to him.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) concerning the tragedy in his constituency—I well understand his concern—it is very difficult to see how somebody being investigated by the police could be automatically banned from entering a club if he was not already in possession of a certificate.

It being fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order this day.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 7, Nos. 9 to 11, Nos. 13 and 14, No. 15 and Government amendment (a) thereto and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 16 to 24, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 33, No. 34 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 35 to 39 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 49, No. 50 and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 51 to 70 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 71, after clause 32, to insert the following new clause—Register of holders of shot gun and firearm certificates—
.—(1) There shall be established a central register of all persons who have applied for a firearm or shot gun certificate or to whom a firearm or shot gun certificate has been granted or whose certificate has been renewed.

(2) The register shall—

(a) record a suitable identifying number for each person to whom a certificate is issued; and
(b) be kept by means of a computer which provides access on—line to all police forces."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Perhaps I shall not be out of order if I refer briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for

Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I am sorry for interrupting him in the last few seconds of the previous debate.
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. The shooting fraternity will have taken notice of the incident that he has mentioned, and will want to take security measures to prevent such an event in future. I strongly suspect that, when the Home Office comes forward with stronger security provisions, there will be some double locking or double entry, or something of that sort, to secure armouries. Those armouries will be attractive places to go, full of complete weapons. We have already had that debate, and I shall be out of order if I go further on that. The shooting community will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
The history of the computerisation and registering of firearms has been bedevilled by the fact that we have so many different police forces. As in so many other areas, this is not a unified operation. The British Shooting Sports Council asked more than five years ago for a civilian firearms board to supervise the issue and monitor the numbers of all shotguns, rifles and revolvers, so that there was a use to be had from such a register.
Until a short time ago, if a firearm was discovered late on a Friday evening by one police force, there was no way in which all the other police forces in the country could be asked whether it was on their register. Thirteen police forces use one sort of computer, six use another, and the others all deal with some separate system. In any event, the systems are not connected by telephone.
The system of registering firearms was not responsive to the needs of the police. That seemed pretty crazy to us, so we proposed an independent board. We believed that that would be cheaper and more efficient. We visualised it being staffed by ex-firearms officers or armourers, or people with an expert knowledge of shooting and shooters. A firearms officer would get to know all the shooting fraternity in the county and the dealers, and would be well in with the shooting world.
Prejudice broke in somewhere. After an amazing series of reports by various accountants, the Home Office finally came up with a figure of £10 million a year to run such a service. For about 1.1 million shotguns and, let us say, about 500,000 rifles and revolvers—I forget the exact total—that seemed rather a lot of money. Sadly, we have never seen some of the accountancy reports behind that decision.
A central register would go some way towards providing a practical response that the shooters are perfectly happy about. We have no worry about details of our weapons and their numbers being kept on a computer. We want the machinery to be useful. Nothing is more purposeless than bureaucracy with no pay-off.
I do not say that we welcome the precise terms of the new clause, but we are prepared to accept it. We can see some good coming out of it. When she starts to deal with the practicalities of the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will impress firmly on the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) the necessity of the police forces talking to each other by computer. It is ludicrous that they are so far apart in this day and age.
Some of those measures will cost money that will have to come out of other budgets. The Home Office has dragged its feet on the issue. The shooting fraternity can


rightly say that it has pressed the Home Office on the issue without success. It has needed a disaster of the sort that we have had before any action is taken. This is at least a step in the right direction.

Mr. Frank Cook: I shall speak on this amendment because of the Minister's response to my accusation of negligence during the debate on the limitation of time motion. She announced that there were proposals for a register later in the Bill. I was pleased to hear that—until I looked at the proposals.
Hon. Members will remember that, when describing the procedures for the Metropolitan police, I identified six agencies that are checked by a certificating officer before any certificate is issued: he checks with the domestic violence unit; he checks with the local intelligence officer; he checks section SO18 for adult cautions; he checks the police national computer for convictions; he checks with Infos, the intelligence pool; and he checks the general registry, which is a library of all surplus files of unfounded allegations that have no result.
That is fine for London. The certificating officer can expose a Jack the lad who has been anti-social and would appear unsuitable for the custodianship of a weapon, but if the same Jack the lad disappears to Sussex, there is no guarantee that the local constabulary will conduct the same inquiry.
The provision in Lords amendment No. 71 for a register of holders of shotgun and firearms certificates would therefore tell of those who have been successful and perhaps those who have applied and not got a certificate, but it will not give the full reasons. It will still be possible, not for someone to move out of London and get one elsewhere, but for someone who has been refused one elsewhere to move to London and get one.
While the move towards a register is a move to the good and I welcome it, I must point out to the Minister that it does not go far enough. Furthermore, it does not take care of the weapons. We need not only a register of holders of firearms, but a register of the weapons themselves. If there are to be legal and illegal weapons, we need to be able to distinguish one from the other. Patently, the provision for that sort of check does not exist under the amendment.
8.30 pm
Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about the need for an independent body, we need better provision within the police force for expert opinion. In far too many constabularies, the duties required under previous firearms legislation have been conducted by constables, who have been well intentioned and keen to be conscientious, but who were poorly trained. Frequently, they are moved around—it is said, for career development—from one area to another, so they do not acquire the expertise necessary for consideration of these matters. I hope that the Minister of State will accept my comments and observations in the spirit in which I have made them, and will try to be constructive in her response.

Mr. Dalyell: I am prompted by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to say a word about communication.
If police forces had talked to one another—and, frankly, if Members of Parliament and local authorities had talked to one another—the tragedy of Dunblane might not have happened. In 1988, prompted by Mrs. Paula Morby, then of Linlithgow, I was brought face to face with the case of Thomas Hamilton. That lady complained bitterly that she was unhappy about her son being taken away to camp by a man she did not care for at all. Incidentally, all I am saying now was said to the Cullen inquiry and to the police.
To cut a long story short, Hamilton came to my surgery and subsequently to my house, and was extremely angry that I had brought the police into what he would call the destruction of his boys' club in Linlithgow. Eventually, when he moved out of Linlithgow, I did little more about it, other than talk to my then parliamentary colleague Alex Eadie, who then represented Midlothian.
There were two things that we did not know. The first was that Hamilton was moving around the country. Had I pooled knowledge with my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who had had similar experiences, or with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), it might all have been different, but it never occurred to us to swap information. I think that I speak for my colleagues in saying that none of us had the slightest notion that that man was involved with guns.
I have drawn the conclusion—hindsight is a wonderful thing, incidentally—that in future there must be communication. It is a double-edged sword, as there can be communication on great unfairnesses between individuals, but this is a matter of judgment, and I do not see how else it can be done. We are entitled to emphasise the importance of communication between police forces.

Miss Widdecombe: The amendment requires the establishment of a national register of firearm and shotgun certificate holders. I can give the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) some reassurance, although perhaps not as much as he would like, inasmuch as one of the categories that he was asking to be covered can be.
The system that we are discussing with the police is called Phoenix, and it will be able to hold details of people who have had firearms or shotgun certificates refused or revoked, so it will not merely be holders. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that it is as helpful as I can be, and I cannot include the other things he asked for at this juncture on that system.

Mr. Frank Cook: Only eight negligences.

Miss Widdecombe: I am glad to find that they are reduced by one. When the hon. Gentleman studies carefully what we have done, he might reduce the list by some more.
Before I deal with the substance of this debate, I should like to complete, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I think that I probably may—the comments that I was endeavouring to make before I was cruelly cut off last time.
What I was saying might have sounded negative to the hon. Member for Stockton, North, but only because it was the first half of the sentence, and I did not get to the second half. I was trying to point out that it would not automatically be known if a starter shooter was being investigated, but that the Secretary of State will not


license clubs to have starter shooters unless he is satisfied that their security precautions are good, and, for example, that there is adequate one-to-one supervision.
It is not proposed that starter shooters should be able to go to a club and automatically reach out, take a gun and have unsupervised handling of it. I hope that that is some consolation to the hon. Gentleman. It would be difficult for the grounds that someone was being investigated to act as a criterion alone, because it would presuppose knowledge, which might not be there. Certainly, if a responsible officer of the club were being investigated, there would be a case for closing the club, so there are safeguards.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that you did not hear me, but I digressed a little.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I heard the right hon. Lady very clearly and concisely. If she had gone further, it would have been brought to her attention.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful for your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I return to the substance of the amendment, and the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about the setting up of a central firearms control board to issue certificates. Lord Cullen did not favour the removal from the police of any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system—that can be found in chapter 8, paragraph 5. We have accepted that recommendation, and agreed with that view.
There was certainly no suggestion that we rejected such a control board simply on the grounds of cost or any such consideration. It was also rejected because such a board would create duplication of effort—there would still be a need for continued police involvement even if a central board were set up.
On that basis, I think that we are right to agree with the Lords in their amendment. We do not see a reason for making a national database a statutory requirement, but we are committed to setting it up, and I therefore do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 75 agreed to.

Clause 34

POWER OF SEARCH WITH WARRANT

Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 18, line 26, at end insert—
("(3A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (2)(b) above to seize and detain anything found on any premises or place shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises or place to be produced in a form in which it is visible and legible and can be taken away.")

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment has already been discussed. The hon. Gentleman has missed his opportunity.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 78, and No. 79 and Government amendment (a) thereto, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 80 to 83, No. 84 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and No. 85 agreed to.

Clause 36

APPROVED RIFLE CLUBS

Lords amendment: No. 86, in page 20, line 16, at end insert—
("(7A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (7) above to inspect anything on club premises shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises to be made available for inspection in a visible and legible form.")

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that this, too, has already been discussed.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 87 to 92 and No. 94 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 95, after clause 40, to insert the following new clause—
("—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provisions and such savings as he considers necessary or expedient in preparation for, in connection with, or in consequence of—

(a) the coming into force of any provision of this Act; or
(b) the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by a provision of this Act during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.

(2) Regulations under this section may make modifications of any enactment contained in this or in any other Act.
(3) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The amendment, which appeared at the 11th hour, appears to someone such as myself—I am not qualified as a barrister—to give sweeping powers to the Home Secretary. I have, however, been given an absolute undertaking that it refers only to the transition period and will help to smooth out minor irregularities and problems.
Bearing in mind the fact that there are those in the shooting community who have got rather overexcited about the provision, I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could explain why it was introduced at such a late stage and repeat the undertaking, so that shooters will not feel that there is a Henry VIII clause at the end of the legislation that will act to their disadvantage, at the Home Secretary's discretion.

Mr. John Carlisle: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. My right hon. Friend the Minister will not be


surprised to hear that a certain amount of suspicion was aroused among members of the shooting fraternity as this late amendment was bounced into the Bill. Frankly, they felt—I choose my words delicately—somewhat let down by the Government over the whole of the Bill.
This evening's proceedings have been remarkable—almost unique—in that every single speech and intervention, other than those from the Front Benches, has been opposed to the principle of the Bill and to particular items in it. Not one speech has been made entirely in favour of any measure in the Bill—not even the 28-day limit.
Clarification is sought by the shooting fraternity, whose members have been amazingly patient during our proceedings, even about the fact that our debate on some extremely important issues is being unnecessarily truncated this evening, as it was on a previous occasion.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will have noticed that the votes in favour of the Lords amendments on disassembly and compensation for clubs and for dealers were remarkably high. I have no doubt that newspaper headlines tomorrow will say that that has been the biggest revolt of this Parliament so far—a Parliament that is at its fag end. There is deep unhappiness throughout the country, not only among the shooting fraternity, but among those who believe in justice, fairness and generosity, which the Bill has not demonstrated in any measure.
We need a clear explanation that the measure is purely transitional and that the Home Secretary, whoever it may be at the time, will not be able to pick out items for which he or she might have an especial liking and change the Bill before it hits the statute book—on whichever sad day that happens. I know that I speak on behalf of many people who have written to me and of many of my constituents who have expressed deep concern about the Bill and the way in which it has been handled by the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: One of the things that may happen in the transition period is the discovery that many of the clubs to which we have been light-heartedly referring have ceased to exist. It is my understanding that in central Scotland there are only two clubs, neither of which is particularly accessible to my constituents or to a lot of other people.
Another question that it is legitimate to peg to this is: who exactly are the civilian officers who are referred to throughout the Bill, and what qualifications do they have?

Mr. Gill: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), I seek an assurance that the powers will be used moderately. There is always a great suspicion that such powers will go far beyond what the House would want.
The House is well aware of the great upset among shooters about the Bill as a whole. They feel that they have been scapegoated for the events of Dunblane. None of us could fail to have been impressed by both the number and the quality of the letters that we have received about the Bill. We are all used to receiving many letters on many subjects, but I have been incredibly impressed by the quality of the letters and the force of the arguments, as well as by the sense of outrage that comes through all the letters from people whose sport is being outlawed.
It is quite without precedent that people who were quietly and peaceably enjoying a sport should find that at the drop of a hat it is no longer legal. There will be continuing unhappiness as a result of the refusal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to allow for any form of consequential loss for those who have lost their businesses, either as suppliers to the trade or as operators of clubs. None of this ill-conceived, unwelcome, unwarranted legislation does anything to address the problem of firearms that are held without licence—the hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms. There must be some suspicion that, in taking the powers under this amendment, we have not heard the last of this legislation. I hope that I express the sentiments of shooters who have written to hon. Members to draw attention to their grave reservations about the provision.
Finally, I underscore what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said about the unprecedented number of Conservative Members who have voted against the Bill at every stage. It is a deeply unpopular measure and it is regrettable that it has come to the House. As a Conservative Member, I have to say that it is not a Conservative measure.

Miss Widdecombe: I give the House an absolute assurance that this is not, and was never intended to be, any sort of Henry VIII clause. The new clause makes it clear that its powers are purely in respect of transitional and consequential provisions, of provisions that are already written into the Bill. It does not give any wider powers to the Secretary of State.
We introduced the powers late, because the fast passage of the Bill and the necessity to introduce tighter controls on firearms in the near future made us decide that over the next few months some minor anomaly might become evident. We wanted to have the necessary powers to deal with that. There is no question whatever, and I say this categorically and give an absolute assurance, of this being a Henry VIII clause.
On the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the civilian officers referred to in the Bill are police staff who specialise in firearms licensing. They are often former police or military officers. The hon. Gentleman tried twice to intervene on amendments that had already been theoretically discussed. If he wishes to write to me on either subject, I should be delighted to reply.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments No. 96 and consequential Government amendment (a), No. 97, No. 98 and consequential Government amendment (a), Nos. 99 to 104, No. 105 and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 106 to 115 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Doug Henderson, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Miss Ann Widdecombe; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

TRANSFER OF CROFTING ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

TRANSFER OF CROFTING ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(1) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State—

(a) in making loans or grants to provide assistance to establish bodies to whom property is to be transferred under that Act and in defraying the legal expenses and other costs of such bodies in connection with the transfer;
(b) in paying compensation in respect of the removal of rights of pre-emption under that Act; and

(2) The payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Young People (Alcohol)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I welcome this opportunity to debate the effects of alcohol on young people, as, I am sure, do many other hon. Members, because we do not often debate the subject. This is not an attempt in any way to attack reputable landlords, pub owners or off-licensees. However, there is a problem among a minority of them.
It seems that there has been a general lack of co-ordination in our approach to the problem. More than 40,000 people die each year from alcohol-related illnesses. Statistics compiled by a voluntary agency called Turning Point show that alcohol is the third biggest killer in the United Kingdom after heart disease and cancer. Many of the effects of alcohol misuse are long term and appear only after many years of abuse, which means that young people do not realise the effects of their drinking until it is too late. Acute intoxication, which occurs after heavy drinking, has a short-term effect that can depress the central nervous system and lead to coma or even death. Long-term effects involve the development of dependency and alcoholism, detrimental effects on the liver and kidneys, memory loss, severe depression and a deterioration in the individual's personal life.
Several surveys and reports have been commissioned in the past few years to discover the extent of alcohol use among children and young people. The most notable findings are that 42 per cent. of 12 to 14-year-olds and 82 per cent. of 15 to 17-year-olds have drunk alcohol. It shows that an extremely large number of young people have experience with alcohol. In 1994, 17 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds were regular drinkers, compared with only 13 per cent. in 1990. That points to an increase in the habitual use of alcohol.
A particularly disturbing statistic is the apparent ease with which young people have access to alcohol, with 52 per cent. of 15-year-olds having purchased alcohol at some point. The ease with which under-age drinkers seem to be acquiring alcohol is a major cause for concern. Children appear to obtain alcohol in several ways. The first is by frequenting pubs. It is no secret that young people go to pubs before they are 18. That is not a new phenomenon, but it does not mean that we should be complacent about it. One solution to that aspect of the problem might be to increase the training of managers and staff of licensed premises. They should be made fully aware of their responsibilities as gatekeepers of the licensing laws. Training is also a practical way of ensuring that all pub staff have a knowledge of the licensing laws, thereby limiting the harm to young people.
The second method that young people use to obtain alcohol is by purchasing it at off-licences. It is widely suspected that the bulk of illegal alcohol sales to children are made by a small number of disreputable traders. Those traders are destroying the good name of one of our most successful industries and, at the same time, damaging our children's health. Off-licences could be deterred from selling alcohol to children and youths by increasing the fines that those establishments are required to pay when they are charged with selling alcohol to under-age drinkers.
A third concern is the vast appeal of alcopops to children. Despite the claims of some brewers, this new breed of alcoholic drinks is marketed predominantly at young people. That has led inevitably to such drinks appealing to those under the age of 18 and encouraging them to drink alcohol. Those points were supported by the Advertising Standards Authority ruling in January 1996.
We welcome the efforts that the Department of Health has made in the area of health education, but much remains to be done. There is no strategic approach to tackling the problem—instead the Government have adopted a piecemeal approach. There is a lack of Government funding. As written answers to questions that I tabled before Christmas show, there is no co-ordinated approach across Britain to providing rehabilitation and support to young people who have become dependent on alcohol. The Minister does not even know how much each health authority spends on the problem.
A more thoughtful approach is required in order to tackle the problem. We need a central focus where information may be shared throughout the country about which treatments work and what is happening where. The Coventry and Warwickshire alcohol advisory service in my constituency is running a successful project. An integral part of the project is a student education scheme, which allows young people to research and deliver alcohol education to schools and youth groups in Coventry and Warwickshire. The service provides young people with the necessary information that will enable them to make intelligent decisions about alcohol consumption.

Mr. Brian David Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the project being run by the Coventry and Warwickshire alcohol advisory service. Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the success of the service, youth and alcohol workers who are trying to run education programmes find that there are no appropriate, up-to-date materials available? Does he agree that the Government should take a lead on the issue and work with the many interested parties to provide the initiatives necessary to tackle the serious problem of under-age drinking in our towns?

Mr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I cannot make the point any better than he has done. We must do more to teach young people throughout Britain about a civilised approach to drinking. We must make them understand that it is neither normal nor acceptable for people—especially young people—to embark on regular drinking binges that leave them in an unconscious state or worse. They must understand that social drinking means only a moderate intake.
The link between alcohol and youth crime is well documented. Too many magistrates too often hear the line, "I was under the influence of alcohol," as an excuse for public disorder or criminal behaviour. Some 44 per cent. of the victims of violent crime described their assailants as being drunk, and alcohol is associated with 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of homicides, 70 per cent. of stabbings and 70 per cent. of beatings. In 88 per cent. of cases involving criminal damage and in 90 per cent. of those involving public disorder, the defendants were either drunk or had admitted to having consumed a significant amount of alcohol. It is therefore not surprising that the Home Office's

own statistics—the British crime survey—show that people have come to associate drunken behaviour with crime and that they become wary of young people who are drinking.
Alcohol-related crime and disorder must be taken more seriously. There need to be more appropriate punishments for drunken behaviour and those who persistently offend should attend programmes designed to tackle their dependency. The drinks industry has an important role to play in the campaign. All producers, distributors and retailers should be required to adhere to a mandatory code of practice to ensure that their products do not disproportionately appeal to the under-age drinker.
A Department for Education and Employment circular that encouraged schools to provide substance misuse education only briefly touched on alcohol. We cannot simply add alcohol advice to any campaign against drugs, because they are two completely different problems. The Department for Education and Employment should ensure that students are taught that the culture that makes alcohol a symbol of status, power and mystique is wrong.

Mr. Don Touhig: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on having initiated the debate and I am grateful to him and to the Minister for allowing me some of their time to participate.
I should declare an interest: I am the chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse and, like all hon. Members, I recognise the risk that alcohol poses to our young people. Survey after survey has shown that children and teenagers are starting to drink alcohol at an earlier age than ever before and that they are drinking more and more on each occasion. That is a worrying trend and, if we are to reverse it, we shall need a strategy that focuses on the range of alcohol-related issues and not only on the problem of young people drinking in public, important though that is.
Alcohol is a greater risk to young people than Ecstasy and other drugs, yet little media attention is paid to it or to the warnings given of the dangers it poses to young people. We all remember Leah Betts and know of the tragic circumstances of her death; but I wonder how many hon. Members remember the name of Lindsay Grant? Lindsay was a 15-year-old on holiday in north Wales who died last year after drinking half a bottle of vodka. Only The Times newspaper covered her tragic story and I refer to it in order to show the complete contrast with the massive publicity given to any drug-related death. There was no public outcry at Lindsay's death, despite her parents' warning of the dangers to young people from alcohol. That highlights the unwillingness of the public, the media and policy makers to acknowledge that the risks posed by alcohol are as great as, if not greater than, those posed by drugs.
The problem of alcohol and young people can start to be properly identified only if we have in place a system for collecting data from the accident and emergency departments on the number of children and teenagers attending as a result of alcohol poisoning or other drink-related accidents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of under-15s being admitted to hospital accident and emergency units with alcohol poisoning has risen tenfold from 1,000 recorded cases a year in the 1980s. Those figures need to be quantified, because there


is currently a major gap in the collection of this sort of information by the national health service. Accumulation of information is important if we are to highlight the serious nature of the problem.
That is why I find it astonishing that the Government have decided to suspend the general household survey, which was the most useful measure of levels and patterns of alcohol consumption. Losing that survey will affect our ability to track progress towards the targets on alcohol consumption in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. I hope that the Government might be persuaded to reconsider their decision on the future of that survey.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the development of the so-called designer drinks and alcopops mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East. Those sweet-tasting drinks, with their sexy names and flashy bottles, have a high alcohol content. At 5.5 per cent., they are often stronger than many beers and ciders. Their taste gives them a particular appeal to children and teenagers.
Recent research carried out by the university of Strathclyde has shown how popular those designer drinks are with children between the ages of 12 and 17. Alcopops and designer drinks are already making a worrying situation worse, and there is genuine anxiety that the marketing of them is legitimising an illicit activity—under-age drinking.
I understand that Whitbread has promised to put on sale alcoholic "slush" drinks and milkshake-based alcoholic drinks. If that is true, I consider it to be grossly irresponsible. It is vital that we have solid regulations to ensure that these drinks do not appeal to the under-18s.
If we are serious about tackling alcohol misuse among children and teenagers, it is important that we teach those young people a safer approach to drinking, not one that aims only to prevent under-age purchase of alcohol. We must set up initiatives that involve parents, teachers, youth workers, the police and children. We need a national alcohol strategy, as I believe that that is the only way in which we shall tackle alcohol-related problems among young people.
Tackling, alcohol misuse among young people needs to be given a much higher priority in this country than is currently the case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for raising this important issue today and for the contribution by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). As they will appreciate, the Government take the issue very seriously, and I hope to reassure them tonight that the Government do have an important strategy for tackling not only the problems of drinking by young people and under-age drinking, but the whole issue of alcohol, alcohol abuse and "The Health of the Nation" in the context of alcohol.
We have been aware of a growing volume of public concern about alcopops—a matter which both hon. Gentlemen mentioned—since they began to appear in the summer of 1995, and we have kept a close eye on

developments since then. We share the hon. Gentlemen's concerns about their potential appeal to young people so, in the Budget in November 1996, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the duty on them to bring them into line with beers of similar strength. From 1 January 1996, the duty on drinks of up to 5.5 per cent. alcohol by volume was increased by more than 40 per cent.—raising the tax on a bottle by between 7p and 8p a bottle.
Both hon. Gentlemen mentioned statistical evidence and information. There is a growing body of anecdotal and ad hoc survey evidence about the effects of these types of drinks on under-age drinkers. I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen have read the results of all the recently published surveys that have been reported in the press, which purport to show that these drinks have a significant appeal to teenagers, especially girls, and that younger teenagers may indeed be the main group to whom these drinks appeal.
A couple of weeks ago, the British Medical Journal reported a survey by the Centre for Social Marketing at the university of Strathclyde—which the hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned—which found that 14 and 15-year-olds found so-called designer drinks especially appealing, whereas 16 to 17-year-olds tended to regard them as childish drinks. Other surveys have shown that they may be perceived to be less strong than traditional drinks and easier to buy.
Although those reports are all matters of considerable concern to us, we feel that we lack reliable and comprehensive data about national consumption by young drinkers, especially comparable data over time on which to base conclusions about the effects of these drinks.
We have been collecting data on young people's drinking since 1988, and I hope that the hon. Member for Islwyn is especially reassured that we have been doing that by means of the biennial teenage drinking survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the most recent survey was carried out during October and November last year, and that some results should be available by Easter this year. They will show whether teenage drinking has increased since the introduction of alcopops in 1995, and will give us more detailed information than has been available so far on who is drinking alcopops and how much those people are drinking.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: How much of the revenue collected from alcopops has been given to local authorities to combat their misuse?

Mr. Burns: It is rather difficult to give statistics of that nature. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from what I said earlier, the tax increase introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in November came into effect only on 1 January this year, so we have not had enough time to come up with such calculations. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that through our general funding of the national health service—which, as he will know, has increased year on year on year on year in real terms under the present Government—money has been available to cater for the health needs of those who suffer from problems involving alcohol and, moreover, those suffering from more classical types of illness and from the effects of drug abuse. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
As I was saying, I hope that the results of the teenage drinking survey carried out last autumn will show us whether teenage drinking has increased since the introduction of alcopops in 1995, and will give us more detailed information than has been available so far on who is drinking alcopops and how much those people are drinking. At present, we have no consistent evidence available to us to suggest that alcopops are increasing the overall level of under-age drinking, or that the new-style drinks are supplanting the more traditional beer and cider. What information we have can sometimes be contradictory, which is why I consider it so important for us to have the results of the survey at Easter. We can then gain a better idea of exactly what is going on. As soon as we have accurate information, it will be easier for us to determine what steps we need to take in addition to those that we are already taking as part of our strategy to deal with alcohol abuse generally.
Although the Government lack consistent and comparable time series data to allow us to draw sensible conclusions about the effects of alcopops, we are tackling under-age drinking on a number of fronts—through legislation and, just as important, through better education and awareness of the effects of drinking. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentlemen, both of whom rightly mentioned the critical role that education must play and the actions that we can take, beyond education, to show that sensible drinking at the right age—and, of course, it is illegal to sell alcohol to those who are under age—will minimise the potential for health problems and other difficulties that young people may experience as they enter their 20s and, indeed, in later life.
Our education policy is well established. We believe that schools, colleges and the youth service should encourage young people to develop responsible attitudes to alcohol consumption. Young people need to learn how to make sensible choices about whether, when and how much to drink, and to resist persuasion and peer pressure to drink inappropriately or to excess.
The interdepartmental group reviewing the Government's sensible drinking message was very concerned about young people's drinking, as hon. Members would expect. In a report published in December 1995, it recognised the risks for young people drinking alcohol in unsafe amounts, and the responsibility of parents in regard to their children's introduction to alcohol. It added that young people needed to be aware of the specific risks from excessive drinking related to their life styles, and of the need to minimise those risks to prevent harm to themselves and others. To get the key messages across, we have been working since then with the Health Education Authority to produce health education materials offering advice to young people. A new campaign targeting young drinkers was launched by the HEA in the middle of January to highlight the risks of "binge" drinking and to encourage a more mature approach towards alcohol.
An interactive campaign Internet site—for those who are aficionados of the Internet, it is www.wrecked.co.uk—gives down-to-earth facts about drinking and the chance for youngsters to send their own messages and receive free campaign materials. I am sure that the House will be pleased to know, and it is certainly heartening from our point of view, that on its first day, 17 January this year, the site received 1,199 visitors.
In addition, a leaflet aimed at families to promote discussion of alcohol issues between young people and their parents has also been produced. More materials planned for later in the year will highlight the risks of getting drunk and satirise the "drunk" culture that is prevalent, sadly, among young people in particular—the notion that it is clever, trendy and acceptable for people to abuse alcohol on social occasions and, even more worryingly, on their own.
It is interesting to observe the way in which attitudes to drink-driving have changed over the past 10 or 15 years, partly or perhaps almost exclusively as a result of education. Fifteen years ago, however irresponsible it may seem now, if a friend or acquaintance was caught drink-driving, there was sympathy for that person because of all the trouble that he would have if he was unable to drive to work, drive socially and so on. Now it has become firmly established in the minds of the vast majority of people in this country that drink-driving is totally unacceptable. It is a fine achievement that that message has got across, and that society's attitudes towards drink-driving have changed so dramatically.
Through education and example, we must bring about a change of attitude, especially among young people, towards drinking and, in particular, under-age drinking, to ensure that it is not considered clever, socially acceptable or de rigueur when going out with one's friends to get drunk out of one's brain. People must be made aware of the dangers to health resulting from such an irresponsible action, the anti-social behaviour that it can create and the fact that it is not amusing for other people to be in the presence of someone who is drunk and sadly making a fool of himself.
We are not so naive as to pretend that young people will not encounter drink problems, or that members of their family will not do so. That is one of the reasons why we support Drinkline, a national alcohol helpline providing confidential information, advice and a support service for anyone, regardless of age, who is concerned about his own or someone else's drinking. Drinkline also provides information on appropriate local services and has produced "The Big Blue Book of Booze," a guide to sensible drinking, especially targeted at young people.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East raised the subject of licensing. I remind the House of a fact that is all too often overlooked: it is an offence to sell alcohol to a person under the age of 18. It is also an offence for a person under 18 to buy it. That applies to all alcoholic drinks above a certain strength, including alcopops.
We strengthened the law in 1988 by placing the onus of responsibility for checking a customer's age firmly on the licensee. Previously, sale to someone under 18 had to be done "knowingly" for an offence to be committed. Now anyone charged with that offence must show that he exercised all due diligence in trying to prevent the sale, or that he had no reason to suspect that the customer was under the age of 18. That provides a reasonable degree of protection for licensees faced with the difficult task of establishing a customer's true age, but ensures that all licensees take their responsibilities seriously.
I welcome the Portman Group's initiative, and other initiatives throughout the country. For example, licensees and publicans have introduced identification card schemes before they will sell alcohol to young people or people who may be under the age of 18. That is an important


step forward because it helps to minimise the problem. I would like more publicans and licensees to take up the Portman scheme or introduce their own schemes to minimise the potential and temptation to sell alcohol to those who are under age.
In 1988, we increased to £1,000 the maximum fine for selling alcohol to people under 18.
We are all concerned about how young people behave if they succeed in getting hold of alcoholic drinks. Because of the problems associated with public drinking in some areas, in 1990 we made available to local authorities a model byelaw that makes it an offence for a person to continue drinking alcohol in a designated public area after being warned by a police constable not to do so. A number of local authorities have now adopted that byelaw or are in the process of doing so. I pay tribute to the city of Coventry, which was a pioneer in the creation of the byelaw. I wish that my own local authority of Chelmsford in Essex had followed Coventry's example a few years ago.
That byelaw is an important step forward, but it is not all-embracing, because, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will know, it does not carry a power of arrest or confiscation. Nor is it directed only at young people.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: As the Minister will be aware, one of the conditions of the byelaw is that if a policeman arrests somebody whom he suspects may have an alcohol problem, the police involve the social services department. That is the case in Coventry. I know that that is true of other cities as well, and it is very useful in trying to help people.

Mr. Burns: I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in any way about that. It is a helpful additional power for the police constable in tackling the problem.
Because the byelaw does not provide direct powers of arrest or confiscation, the Government support the private Member's Bill that is being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), which will give the police the power to confiscate alcohol from under-age people drinking in public. As the House will know, that Bill is currently proceeding through the House. I hope that it will reach the statute book before the general election—whenever that may be—because it is an important measure that tries to deal with the problem.
As I said in reply to a parliamentary question that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East asked last November, the Government believe that self-regulation by the industry is the most effective way to control alcohol advertising. That issue was raised briefly earlier in the debate. We welcome the very responsible approach that the Portman Group and its members took in drawing up the voluntary code of practice for the packaging, marketing and sale of alcoholic drinks, in response to concerns about alcoholic soft drinks and their appeal to young people.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the code, which was published last April, seeks to prevent the supply of all alcoholic drinks, not just alcopops, to under-18s, by requiring that brand names, packaging and merchandising are not targeted at them, and that retailers take particular care to ensure that alcohol is not purchased by under-18s.
We welcome the Portman Group's further moves to raise the code's profile with the general public, because that is crucial. It has now appointed a fully independent panel to consider complaints about breaches of the code. It will allow the Portman Group to offer an advisory service on new products, knowing that its advice will not be prejudicial to the consideration of any subsequent complaints, as these will be considered by the independent panel. We welcome that further development and the Portman Group's other activities regarding young people and drinking. Notable among those is its youth task force, which aims to identify the influences on under-age drinking, implement pilot projects on education and retail training, and make recommendations to the Government, local government and service providers. We look forward to seeing its findings and recommendations, which are due in the autumn. The Government are continuing to monitor the industry's response closely and shall certainly want to take stock again after the first year of operation of the code.
The Government have not been impressed by recent reports of developments in broader alcohol marketing, such as alcopop home-brew kits, alcoholic slush puppies, to which the hon. Member for Islwyn referred, and sachets of alcohol marketed as "alcotots". Although the manufacturers of those innovations often sit outside the conventional drinks industry that is represented by the Portman Group and hence are not signatories to the code, it is surely right that they are seen as part of the totality of the alcohol industry. It is up to the industry in all its forms to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public and the Government that it can regulate itself effectively regarding alcohol products.
As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will appreciate, we take the problem of under-age drinking extremely seriously. Like everyone else, we are all too aware of the misery, hardship and, problems that it causes not only to individuals but to their families and the impact that it has in general on society and innocent people.
We are keeping the situation very much under review and considering options for the future. We would not, however, want to act precipitously while we are short of national time series data on alcohol consumption levels of under-age drinkers. Nor would we want to act before the Portman Group's latest changes to the operation of its code of practice have been given time to take effect—certainly not before its code has had at least a year of operation, which will be by spring this year.
I once again assure hon. Members that we are fully aware of the problems, as they would expect. We fully share their concern. I hope that they accept my assurances that we have a strategy for tackling the problem. We have a full education initiative in operation not only through Health Education Authority advertising, but in schools and colleges—as I mentioned—and the national curriculum. Alcohol abuse is as important as drug abuse. We are waiting for data so that we do not have to rely solely on anecdotal information. In the light of hard data, we will be able to see the best way forward in trying to minimise the problems that blight so many people, families and, inevitably, communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Ten o'clock.